Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ARREST, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that at midnight, on Saturday, 29th August, William Brown, 177, Sandyfaulds Street, and Alex Grassie, 135, Sandyfaulds Street, Glasgow, were arrested at their homes on the charge of shop-beraking; that their homes were searched, but nothing was found in any way showing their guilt; that they were detained in prison until Tuesday morning; that they had never been in any trouble before and were not concerned in any act of shop-breaking; that the wife of one of them was in an advanced state of pregnancy and was seriously affected in health as a result; whether he has caused inquiry to be made; and what steps he proposes to take to have these men compensated?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Elliot): I am aware that in the early morning of Sunday, 30th August, the two men referred to were arrested on a charge of breaking into a public house, that Mr. Brown's house was searched by the police but no incriminating evidence was found. I am also aware that both men were liberated on Tuesday, 1st September, the proceedings against them having been dropped; and that neither of the men had been previously convicted. I understand that the wife of Mr. Brown was in an advanced state of pregnancy at the time her husband was arrested, but I have no information as to whether her health was affected. As regards the last two parts of the question the cases have, as I recently informed the hon. Member in correspondence, been the subject of

inquiry by the police authority of Glasgow who, after carefully considering the whole circumstances, decided to take no action. Any question as to payment of compensation in these cases is not a matter in which I have any jurisdiction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman not go into this matter again, seeing that the two men were in prison for such a time without any charge having been made against them?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid it is not possible or competent for me to express any opinion as to whether compensation should or should not be paid by a police authority.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (GLASGOW).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average cost of a suit of clothes and coat supplied to men by the Public Assistance Committee of Glasgow Corporation; and whether he is aware that people receiving such clothes are being called upon to pay one shilling a week from their allowance to repay the cost of such garments?

Mr. ELLIOT: The average cost of a suit of clothes supplied by the Public Assistance Committee of Glasgow Corporation to able-bodied persons out of employment is 22s. The average cost of a coat is 18s. The relief allowances to the able-bodied are intended to cover the cost of clothing, but where suits or coats are supplied deductions, usually at the rate of 1s. per week, are made from the allowances in cases where the committee so decide.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the fair wages clause is observed with regard to the production of those clothes, and will he ascertain what the material is, whether it is paper, or what other material?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will make inquiries.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Public Assistance Committee of Glasgow Corporation are providing old boots which have been worn previously by other children for children of the sick poor when their own boots are under repair; and whether he will take the necessary steps to stop this practice with its grave risks of infection?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part of the question does not arise.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, because a constituent of mine came to me with a pair of worn boots, which I sent back, and her boy had to go without boots until his own boots were repaired?

Mr. ELLIOT: Any information which the hon. Member can give me I shall be very glad to look into.

HOUSING (GLASGOW).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that on 16th June his predecessor stated in reply to a question that the Glasgow Corporation were aware of the insanitary condition of the house at 18, Soho Street, Glasgow, and that early steps would be taken to rehouse the people concerned; that so far nothing has been done; and whether he will take steps to see that the assurance given in the House is fulfilled?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that in the reply referred to the late Secretary of State stated that the Glasgow Corporation hoped to take early action with respect to these houses, but I am informed that they have not yet been able to deal with them. The corporation state that they are proceeding with all possible speed with their housing programme, but that there are still many worse houses in the city with which they have to deal first.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point, that an assurance was given to the House, through the former Secretary of State, that they hoped to be able to rehouse these people at an early date, and the Glasgow Corporation has not carried out that assurance?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him what are the means by which he can force or induce this Socialist corporation to carry out its duties in a humanitarian way?

Mr. STEPHEN: May I have an answer?

Mr. ELLIOT: The question on the Paper relates to the condition of Glasgow

housing. I think we must all agree that it is a scandal which we desire to terminate at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not realise that an assurance was given publicly to this House, through the Secretary of State, by the corporation, and can he not take steps to secure that the corporation will make good the assurance that it gave to the House?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have a copy of the answer in which the late Secretary of State distinctly said:
The Corporation of Glasgow inform me that they are aware of the condition of the houses referred to and that they hope to take early action with respect to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1936; col. 813, Vol. 315.]
I do not think that can be construed as a pledge.

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses in Glasgow at present occupied which are of one apartment; the number of houses without lavatory accommodation in the house; and the number without bathroom and lavatory accommodation?

Mr. ELLIOT: The number of one-apartment houses occupied in Glasgow at the end of October, 1936, was 34,375. In regard to the second and third parts of the question, I cannot give exact figures, but the number of houses in Glasgow without a separate water closet is about 100,000; very few, if any, of these houses have a bath. Additional to these the number of houses with a separate water closet but no bath is about 53,000.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these terrible housing conditions, inherited by the present, Corporation of Glasgow, are the result of a century of neglect by his friends?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think they are due to a century of neglect by everyone, but that does not mean we should not do something now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in the Gorbals Division in Glasgow large numbers of families are living in one-apartment houses with no lavatory accommodation; that in some cases the house is occupied by five or six children and two adults and in other


cases occupied by members of a family who suffer from tuberculosis; that these folk have made repeated efforts for houses without success; and whether he proposes to take any steps in this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that conditions in the Gorbals Division are substantially as stated in the question, although I understand that in letting houses to overcrowded families the corporation are guided by their medical officer of health, who gives full weight to the existence of an infectious case of tuberculosis in a family applying for a house. It will take time to eliminate all the unsatisfactory houses in Glasgow, but I am in constant touch with the corporation to ensure that the maximum possible progress is maintained.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied at the moment with the rate of progress in the provision of houses for these poor, unfortunate people?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, I certainly am not, and I hope and believe that the corporation is not either.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of progress in any other part of the country?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

OATS.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the oats question is still being examined by the Government; and, if so, when he expects to be in a position to make an announcement of policy?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. But I am not yet in a position to indicate when it will be possible to make a statement.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does my right hon. Friend not recollect that this question has been under consideration by the Government for several years, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister gave an assurance to a deputation last July that it would be reconsidered urgently, and under his personal supervision, does the right hon. Gentleman not think he might give us an assurance that another year will not be allowed to elapse before we know what is the Government's policy?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have recently taken over the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, and certainly am not going to give any assurance at the present moment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to use his past experience?

Mr. ELLIOT: I certainly will not undertake that.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that the farmers in the North of Scotland cannot be held responsible for changes in the Government?

Mr. ELLIOT: There has been an improvement in the price of oats.

LION RAMPANT FLAG.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the doubt which still exists as to the right of citizens to fly, as well as to display, the lion rampant flag, owing to declarations made by the Lord Lyon King of Arms; and whether he will make the position clear beyond any possibility of doubt?

Mr. ELLIOT: It would be quite impossible within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question to indicate the numerous Statutory and other restrictions which apply to the use of armorial bearings in general, and of the Royal Arms or any part thereof in particular. I can, however say that in the Royal Warrant of September, 1934, which directed that no official cognisance should be taken of the display of the lion rampant flag as a mark of loyalty by His Majesty's loyal subjects, no qualification is made as to the method of display.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter, of little importance in itself, does assume importance because of the rampant attitude of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, and may we take it quite definitely that no proceedings will follow the flying and displaying, in any circumstances, of this flag in future?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think I have given a full answer to the question, and I think it would be undesirable for me to go beyond it. If the answer is studied, I think it will clear up all the points of difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINING SUBSIDENCE.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether in the course of preparing the Bill for dealing with the mining royalties, he will inquire from the local authorities where mining operations are in progress what is the extent of the damage caused by mining subsidence, so that provision can be made in the Bill for recompense to them?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. A radical alteration in the Law of Support, such as the hon. Member suggests, is not within the scope of the proposed legislation.

Mr. TINKER: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman will have to meet an amendment on this particular point when the Bill is brought forward, and I want him to be prepared for it, will he try to get this information?

FIREDAMP DETECTOR REGULATIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has appointed the committee to examine the working of the 1935 lighting regulations in coal mines; and, if so, will he supply the names of the members of the committee

Captain CROOKSHANK: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the Firedamp Detector Regulations in regard to which I propose to appoint such a committee forthwith. I cannot yet give the names of the members, but I may say that the committee will be fully representative of the industry and will also

Number of Persons employed at Mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, as at 14th December, 1935.


—
Underground.
Surface (including clerks).
Total.


Males.
Males.
Females.


Under 16 years of age
19,318
11,621
304
31,243


16 and under 18 years of age
27,278
9,799
438
37,515

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys under 16 years of age employed on the surface and underground, respectively, in each of the districts in the country; and also the number of persons aged 65 years and over employed underground

include an independent chairman and a representative of my Department.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the committee is likely to be appointed or state who are to be invited to become members?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I could not answer the last part of the question as regards invitations to membership. I am considering the matter at the moment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I put down a question, say, on Wednesday will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to give me a reply?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Perhaps the hon. Member will talk to me about the matter.

EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Colonel ROPNER: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of juveniles who are at present employed in the mining industry and the average number of hours they work per week?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As I do not know what age limits the hon. and gallant Member includes in juveniles, and as I presume he would wish underground and surface workers to be given separately, a number of figures are involved. I will, therefore, with his permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member will find the available information on pages 140 and 141 of my Annual Report for 1935.

Following are the figures:—

and on the surface, in each district, on the last date for which such figures are available?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The latest information in regard to boy wage-earners in the various districts will be found on pages 132 and 133 of my Annual Report


for the year 1935. No recent information is available as to persons over 65 years of age, but a special return obtained in November, 1933, showed that the number on the colliery books was less than 10,000.

Mr. RILEY: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys between the ages of 15 and 18 employed in coal mines in this country, and the number of such boys who work in coal mines between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.?

Captain CROOKSHANK: With regard to the first part of the question, figures are not available in the form asked for by the hon. Member, but for such information as is available I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner). I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

ACCIDENTS, YORKSHIRE.

Colonel ROPNER: asked the Secretary for Mines how many miners have lost their lives through accidents in Yorkshire, collieries during each of the last three years?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The figures are as follow: 1933, 128; 1934, 107; 1935, 171.

FLOODING, WESTHOUGHTON.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: asked the Secretary for Mines, whether he is aware that Stotts Pit, Westhoughton, is again threatened with flooding; and will he take steps to initiate a co-operative pumping scheme for this area?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have been informed of the position at this colliery, but, as the hon. Member is aware, in order to establish a joint pumping scheme it is in practice necessary to have in favour of such a scheme a majority of the colliery owners who would have to work it. My Department would, of course, be ready to give any assistance in their power to the colliery owners concerned.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that during the last 10 years 16 collieries have been closed down within a four-mile radius of this pit; and that other pits in the neighbourhood are likely to be flooded unless a co-operative pumping scheme is established?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think that is a matter of opinion.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether a report has reached the Mines Department of the inrush of water at the Stott Colliery, Westhoughton; is he aware that there are a number of collieries within a few miles that come within the danger zone if the water reaches a certain height; and will he cause full inquiries to be made so that effective safety precautions can be taken?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir, I have received a report on the flooding of the Stotts Pit of the Westhoughton Colliery. From the investigations already made it would appear that at present it does not give rise to any question of danger in relation to other collieries since the only workings in the immediate vicinity have already been abandoned. A close watch is, however, being kept on the position by His Majesty's inspectors.

Mr. TINKER: In view of the large number of collieries which have suffered in various parts of the country through adequate protection not being given in time, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see to it at once that the colliery companies are brought together to investigate this matter along with the mines inspectors?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have already answered a question touching on that topic.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that pumping was stopped in this neighbourhood years ago and that several collieries have been flooded in consequence of the rising of this water; and is there any possibility of getting the companies together to start a co-operative pumping scheme?

Mr. ROWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that certain pits further south will suffer the same fate within ten years unless steps are taken and that the cost of saving those collieries would not be more than £4,000 per annum?

SAFETY IN MINES RESEARCH BOARD.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the post of mining engineer to the Safety in Mines Research Board is now vacant; and whether steps are being taken to fill it to the best advantage?

Captain CROOKSHANK: This important post is vacant, but the duties are being carried on temporarily by its former holder until his successor is appointed. There is some difficulty in finding a successor with the necessary high technical and personal qualifications and the board attribute this difficulty in part to an impression prevailing in certain quarters that the duties of the post may be merely temporary. The board wish, therefore, to make it known that they regard the whole-time services of a highly qualified mining engineer as an indispensable part of the organisation for carrying out safety research, and that their policy will be to maintain such a post for the whole period during which a substantial income is assured them by statute and endowment. I am in full agreement with that policy, and take this opportunity to make it generally known.

FIREMEN AND DEPUTIES.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will take steps to satisfy the growing feeling among mineworkers that it would lead to greater safety if the firemen and deputies were under direct control of the Mines Department and their whole time devoted to examination of the districts under their charge

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have nothing to add at the present time to the reply which I gave on 17th March to the late Member for Clay Cross.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that expenses have been cut down by 50 per cent. under the direct control of the colliery owners and that unbiased opinion is that under Government control there would be much greater safety?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member has just said that it is a matter of opinion and he is, of course, aware that there is a Royal Commission dealing with these problems and that evidence on this point has already been laid before them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is no longer a matter of opinion but a matter of knowledge?

SILICOSIS AND ANTHRACOSIS.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of

deaths among coal miners that were attributed to silicosis or anthracosis by the verdicts of coroners' inquests in each of the respective inspectorate divisions for each year from 1929 to 1935, inclusive?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret that the information desired is not available.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether there are any negotiations now proceeding between his Department and the royalty owners in regard to the proposed legislation to unify the ownership of royalties; what are the organisations acting for the royalty owners; and whether it is proposed to settle the terms of the purchase of the royalty rights by the State before the proposed legislation is submitted to Parliament?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Discussions have taken place and will continue to take place between representatives of His Majesty's Government and of the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee in regard to the proposed unification of coal royalties. It is obviously advantageous with these as with any other legislative proposals that they should command the widest possible measure of agreement, and this applies to the terms of purchase as to other questions. But I need hardly remind the hon. Member when he speaks of "settling" these terms, that that is a matter for Parliament.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the names of the organisations with which these consultations are taking place; and can his answer be construed as an assurance that no price will be fixed until the matter comes before this House?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have just said that the body is the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that no agreement has yet been reached with the mineral royalty owners as to the purchase terms

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is a separate question.

FOREIGN EXPORTS.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Secretary for Mines the names of


European countries which give financial or other assistance to coal exported from those countries, and the value per ton of such assistance given in each case?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The European countries which give financial or other assistance to their coal exports are, so far as I am aware, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Poland and Turkey. I regret that I have not sufficient data available to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. HALL: Can the information be given in respect of some of the countries?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will consider that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a word with me about it.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend in touch with the Board of Trade on this question with a view to getting adjustments of trade agreements?

Captain CROOKSHANK: My hon. and gallant Friend forgets that I am part of the Board of Trade.

Sir J. NALL: For that very reason, will my hon. and gallant Friend get into touch with the trade agreement Department of the Board of Trade?

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. G. HALL: asked the Secretary for Mines what action, if any, is proposed by the Government to bring about an improvement in the coal export trade of this country?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The position of the coal export trade is continually under review, and the hon. Member may rest assured that no oportunity of bringing about an improvement is or will be overlooked.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the matter of an export subsidy under the consideration of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Gentleman had better put a question down if he wants to know.

ALBERTA (FINANCE).

Mr. LYONS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether

any new type currency has been issued by the present Provincial Government in Alberta; and to what extent it is in circulation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My hon. and learned Friend is presumably referring to the Prosperity Certificates, which are documents promising to pay the bearer the face value of $1 on the expiration of two years from the date of issue if the correct number of stamps has been affixed to the back. According to Press reports, of some 250,000 certificates which were issued by the Provincial Government of Alberta last August, a large percentage is no longer in circulation, having been accepted in payment of taxes.

Mr. LYONS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make a statement on the present financial position of Alberta?

Mr. MacDONALD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and learned Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to a recent statement by the Treasurer of Alberta, reported in the Canadian Press, the cash deficit on ordinary Government expenditure in the year ending March, 1936, amounts to $1,650,792, which, with extraordinary expenditure, has produced a debt increase of $7,472,301, the funded and unfunded debt at the end of the year being $158,081,350. As my hon. and learned Friend is no doubt aware, a 6 per cent. bond issue of $1,250,000 of the Province of Alberta, due for redemption on 1st November, has not been met; interest at the rate of 3 per cent. will, I gather, continue to be paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS.

Mr. LYONS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of occasions this year on which the Tariff Board in Canada has considered applications for tariff reduction by manufacturers of this country in pursuance of the Ottawa Agreements; the number and particulars of tariff items covered


thereby; and the items in respect of which reductions have been ordered and the amounts thereof?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: There has been no occasion for the Tariff Board in Canada to meet this year in order to consider applications on behalf of United Kingdom manufacturers for reviews of Canadian duties under the provisions of the Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada concluded at Ottawa; but, as my hon. and learned Friend is aware, they presented a report on cotton textiles in April which recommended a reduction in the British preferential tariff on these goods.

Mr. LYONS: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said, may I ask whether this question of a tariff board sitting at Ottawa will be one of the matters that will be reviewed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference

Mr. MacDONALD: The whole question of the Ottawa Agreements and the possible revision of the trade agreement with Canada is, as my hon. and learned Friend has no doubt noticed in the Press, under consideration.

Sir J. NALL: Are the Dominion Government taking steps to give effect to the recommendations which my right hon. Friend has mentioned?

Mr. MacDONALD: The recommendations have already been given effect to by the Dominion Government.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether advantage is to be taken of the denunciation by the Government of India of the Ottawa Trade Agreement to accord to British manufacturers in this country, where it is necessary, some measure of protection against Indian manufactured goods, while continuing to accord such goods substantial preferences over similar foreign goods?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I can assure my hon. Friend that the interests to which he refers will be carefully borne in mind during the negotiations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to advise his colleagues in necessary cases to impose duties at preferential rates on goods coming from India?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my hon. Friend had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there any reason why the preference on linseed should not be at once removed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I certainly cannot answer a question about linseed without notice.

RUSSIA.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of payments still due from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 31st December, 1935, for goods supplied from Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: On 31st December, 1935, a sum of approximately £2,000,000 still remained to be paid in respect of goods consigned from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union.

Mr. THURTLE: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no fear whatever that these payments will be met?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that about four-fifths of these outstanding claims have already been paid off.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, as Great Britain has purchased from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the 14 years 1922–35 goods to the value of £298,000,000 while the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has only purchased from us £66,000,000 worth of United Kingdom products and £60,000,000 worth of re-exports, and has therefore a trade balance of £172,000,000, was it necessary to give the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics what is in effect a five year loan of 10,000,000 in order to increase her purchases in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since 1934 the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been regulated by the arrangements contained in the Schedule to the Temporary Commercial Agreement of 16th February, 1934. In these circumstances, statistics going back to 1922 would not seem to be relevant to the arrangement, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, for stimulating the export to Russia of United Kingdom manufactures.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that by giving this loan of £10,000,000 he is really financing the arming of Spanish Reds and propaganda against this country?

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value and particulars of exports of manufactured goods to Soviet Russia for the 12 months ended to the last available date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the majority of those exports have not been paid for?

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the total declared value of exports of United Kingdom goods classified in the trade returns as wholly or mainly manufactured which were consigned to the Soviet Union during the year 1935.

Declared Value.


Description.
£'000.


Total
3,098


of which
—


Ferro-alloys
483


Other iron and steel and manufactures thereof
854


Unwrought nickel
348


Other non-ferrous metals and manufactures thereof
126


Machine tools (metal-working)
575


Other machinery and parts thereof
332

DENMARK.

Mr. BOULTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the amount of Denmark's purchases of British goods, apart from the re-export trade to that country, completely fulfils her obligations under the trade agreement with this country; and, if not, will he make representations to the Danish Government with a view to their issuing additional licences for the importation of cutlery which Danish importers urgently require?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter referred to in the second part is shortly to be discussed with the Danish authorities.

IMPORT DUTIES ORDERS.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Chancell of the Exchequer how many orders have

been issued to date by the Import Duties Advisory Board; and how many in all have been refused Treasury consent?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Import Duties Advisory Committee is, as its name implies, an advisory body and does not issue orders. Excluding recommendations relating to the licensing of individual consignments of goods it has made 309 recommendations. Of these 309 the Treasury decided not to give effect to one, namely, a recommendation relating to electric lamps. In that case a voluntary agreement for the regulation of imports was reached.

Mr. LEACH: Would it be unfair to characterise the Treasury in this matter as a rubber stamp?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: May I ask how many recommendations the Treasury is sitting on at the moment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend means how many recommendations are still under consideration by the Treasury, I think there are about six.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. McGHEE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps are being taken in Bechuanaland to bring the position as regards the system of labour by order of the chiefs, referred to in Sir Alan Pim's report, into conformity with the provisions of the International Convention on Forced Labour?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: A provision was included in the Bechuanaland Protectorate Native Administration Proclamation of 1934, the effect of which is to make it illegal for a chief to exact any work or service from natives except in cases which are recognised as permissible under the Forced Labour Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (MEDICAL EXAMINATION, NATIVES).

Mr. McGHEE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in view of the compulsory medical examination of natives in Southern Rhodesia, mainly for venereal disease, what are the provisions for treatment; and how many centres for treatment exist?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The Southern Rhodesia Public Health Act, 1924, which contains provisions for compulsory medical examination of persons believed to be suffering from venereal disease, also provides for free treatment, the free supply of remedies, and financial assistance to local authorities and voluntary bodies in connection with the treatment and accommodation of such cases. I understand that, under these provisions, a constantly increasing number of treatment centres are being established in various parts of the country. In addition to the provisions of the Public Health Act, the Natives Registration Act, 1936, authorises the issue of regulations providing for the compulsory medical examination of natives in townships, subject to adequate arrangements being made by the local authority for examination and treatment. I am asking the Government of Southern Rhodesia for a report as to any action taken under this provision of the Act and as to the position generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: asked the Secretary of State of Dominion Affairs whether any Dominions are ready to resume adult emigration; if so, on what lines; and how many of such Dominions are taking boys for training purposes?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind assisted migration under the Empire Settlement Act. No Dominion Government has yet informed me of its readiness to resume co-operation in any scheme of assisted migration for adults. In regard to the second part of the question, apart from children of both sexes going to Fair-bridge Farm Schools in Western Australia and British Columbia and to Barnardo's Farm School in New South Wales, there is at present no movement of boys to the Dominions for training purposes.

Mr. SMITH: Will these matters be most carefully explored previous to the meeting of the Imperial Conference next summer?

Mr. MacDONALD: The question is under consideration now, not only in this country, but, as the hon. Member may have seen from Press reports, in the Commonwealth of Australia as well.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Big Brother scheme is in being, and whether Australia is preparing to receive boys under that scheme?

Mr. MacDONALD: The Big Brother movement is still in being so far as the after-care of boys already in Australia is concerned, but at present no new boys are going out under that scheme. With regard to Australian intentions for the future, that is a matter, of course, for the Australian Government themselves.

Mr. LUNN: How many boys during the last two or three years have gone out under the Fairbridge Farm Schools and other schemes?

Mr. L. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the amount spent under the Empire Settlement Act since it came into force, giving, in each case, the overseas Dominion where such money has been spent and the number of people who were settled under the provisions of the Act?

Mr. MacDONALD: As the answer contains tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of reviving the £10 scheme for Canada?

Following is the answer:

The total net expenditure by the United Kingdom Government under the Empire Settlement Act to 31st March, 1936, is £6,099,046, and the total number of migrants assisted is 405,230.

The following table shows the approximate apportionment to each Dominion and includes assistance to the cost of passages in each case.

Mr. L. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he possesses any records to show the number of people settled under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, who have come home in recent years during the economic slump; and what is the net residue of such emigrants who have remained in the Dominions to which they went?

Mr. MacDONALD: I have no records of the number of people assisted under the Empire Settlement Act who have Returned to this country.

Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers of boys returning from any Dominion more than are going out?

Mr. MacDONALD: This is a question with regard to people returning who have been assisted emigrants. If the hon. Member puts down a question with regard to general figures, I shall be happy to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

FOREIGN VESSELS (COASTWISE TRADING).

Mr. STOREY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether foreign vessels trading on the British coast are manned in accordance with British standards and the crews paid at Maritime Board rates; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action to enforce such standards?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: By Article 48 of the International Safety Convention, contracting Governments undertake to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life at sea, their ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned. The Board of Trade can intervene in regard to the manning of a foreign ship sailing from a United Kingdom port only if by reason of undermanning the ship is unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life. As regards rates of pay, the National Maritime Board rates apply only to vessels whose crews are engaged in the United Kingdom on Board of Trade articles.

Mr. STOREY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that powers should not be taken to enforce Maritime Board rates of wages on those foreign vessels to compete solely with British vessels?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has been found impracticable to enforce rates of wages upon foreign vessels.

Mr. STOREY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of foreign motor vessels engaged regularly in the British coasting tramp trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The precise number of foreign vessels engaged in the British coasting trade during any year is not known, since the navigation returns furnished to the Board of Trade include the repeated voyages of the vessels concerned. These returns, which do not distinguish tramp vessels, show that during the year 1935 the aggregate of the arrivals and departures with cargo of foreign motor vessels in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom was 2,708, out of a total for all foreign vessels of 3,246, as compared with a corresponding total for all British vessels of 199,939.

Mr. STOREY: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent case in which the master of a foreign vessel was fined for overloading, and an official of the right hon. Gentleman's Department gave evidence that no fewer than 62 Dutch motor vessels engaged solely in the British coasting trade came from Hull regularly, and does he not think that action should be taken to protect British coasting tramp vessels from such competition?

Mr. STOREY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of coastwise traffic carried in foreign vessels to total coastwise traffic other than that carried in liners and large colliers, for each of the last three years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information desired is not available.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Would it not be in the national interest to obtain information on these lines?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt it would, but the information for which I was asked was the percentage of coastwise traffic carried in foreign vessels to total coastwise traffic other than that carried in liners and large colliers, for each of the last three years, and that information is not available.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not time that the Board of Trade brought itself up to date and gave information of this kind?

COLOURED SEAMEN.

Mr. AMMON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large number of coloured seamen recruited by shipping companies abroad and left stranded in home ports, he will seek powers to ensure that such seamen be repatriated; and to what extent his Department do, under the existing law, endeavour to arrange for the repatriation or re-engagement of these seamen?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no reason to think that any appreciable number of coloured seamen are recruited by shipping companies abroad and left stranded in this country. As regards the repatriation of any such as may be left behind, I understand that a very strict control is exercised under the Aliens Order of 1920 over the entry of any who are not of British nationality. There is, however, no power to enforce the repatriation of British subjects. My information is that the main problem arises from the presence in this country of coloured seamen who first came here many years ago and are domiciled here, and that there will be no delay in carrying out the examination of this question, which, as I have already stated, is receiving the attention of the Departments concerned.

Mr. AMMON: As a committee has been sitting for three years, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when it will report?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I cannot do so without notice.

NEUTRAL TONNAGE.

Colonel ROPNER: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much neutral tonnage was employed by the British Government during the War and immediate post-war period until the Government had redelivered all neutral tonnage; what were the rates of hire and total sum paid for its services; how far were such services procured by the exercise of what was known as bunker control; what were the corresponding rates paid by His Majesty's Government for requisitioned tonnage; and what were the world market rates which free neutral tonnage could obtain in the market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to available records, the amount of neutral tonnage (excluding tankers) employed in the

import service of the United Kingdom was as follows:
On 31st July, 1918–270,000 tons deadweight.
On 31st March, 1919–373,000 tons deadweight.
The rates of hire averaged 35s. per ton deadweight on a net form of time charter. The corresponding average rates of hire for requisitioned tonnage were about one-fifth or one-sixth of this figure. The corresponding world market rate as published in the Press ranged between 23s. and 43s. in 1918. No information is now available as to the total sum paid, nor is it possible to say how far the services of neutral tonnage were secured by bunker control or by other means of pressure available to the Government at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, TORONTO, CANADA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the default of the Independent Order of Foresters, Toronto, Canada, Insurance Society; and what steps have been taken to secure the return of premiums or the appropriate sums due on endowment policies to British insurers?

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the default of the Independent Order of Foresters, Toronto, Canada, to meet its obligations on insurance policies in this country; whether the Order is registered for business in Britain; whether he has communicated with the Government of Canada or taken any other steps to protect the insured members of the Order paying premiums in this country; and whether he proposes to take any steps by legislation to place all overseas offices doing business here under the same regulations as offices domiciled in Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no reason to believe that this society is not meeting its obligations in regard to policies issued after 1917. I am, however, aware that holders of policies issued prior to 1917 have on the maturity of their policies received substantially less than the nominal amount of policies, owing to the steps


taken in that year and in 1913 under powers specifically conferred by a Canadian Act of Parliament with a view to placing the society in a position of solvency.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are there no means of safeguarding British insurers against companies of this description from whom there is no guarantee of either lump sums to which they are entitled or the return of premiums?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already available a safeguard, and that it was brought to the attention of the Board of Trade in a debate a year or 18 months ago when the Board of Trade was requested to put the oversea insurance concerns doing business here under the same regulations as those which govern British concerns domiciled here?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If we had the power to bring them under the control to which British concerns in this country submit, we should certainly safeguard ourselves against some of these risks, but I cannot undertake to say that that would apply to institutions established in another country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable that a defaulting organisation should be allowed to continue operating upon innocent policy holders in this country and, if not, is he prepared to introduce legislation to stop it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I gave the fullest possible answer I could to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As I have a specific question on the Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself, could I now have an answer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot add to the answer I have already given, except to say that all insurance companies carrying on business in the United Kingdom, whether incorporated therein or not, are already subject to the same statutory requirements.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As that is not an answer to my question, may I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that this organisation, which, on his own admission, has defaulted

against its policy holders, is to be allowed to continue further defalcations upon policy holders in this country? If not, is he prepared to introduce legislation to stop it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes the inquiry to proceed to these lengths, he ought to put another question on the Paper. I shall be glad to give the fullest answer in my power.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With deference, that is precisely the question that I have on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce legislation this Session to put Ministerial salaries upon a more equitable basis?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said on this subject on 3rd November in the course of the Debate on the Address.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. LEES-JONES: asked the Prime Minister whether time will be provided for the House to discuss the report of the Joint Committee on Water Resources and Supplies?

The PRIME MINISTER: The report of the Joint Committee on Water Resources and Supplies is being examined by the Departments concerned. I regret I can hold out no hope of time being provided to discuss this report.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: As a great measure of agreement was arrived at between the witnesses before the Joint Committee, would it not be possible to suggest to the Minister of Health that he should circulate a skeleton or draft Bill which, I think, would result in our getting an agreed Act of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that there is any prospect in the present Session, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that a reference to the necessity of schemes to


supply water in sparsely populated districts, particularly in Scotland, was included in the Government's manifesto to the nation at the last General Election? Will that be carried out?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me. Whatever was alluded to will, I am sure, be carried out in due time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS RECONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of applications made to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited, together with the total amount of the loans required, and also the number of the applications with the total amount of loans actually granted

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the total number of applications received by the Association to date is 358, of which 65 were not within the scope of the Association and 104 were indefinite in character. The total amount of loans required cannot be stated as the applications are in many cases indeterminate on this point. The Association have up to the present agreed to grant 14 loans for a total of £52,300.

Mr. G. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers for each of the Special Areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I have notice I think I probably can.

Mr. ADAMS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that reputable companies situated in Special Areas and requiring loans for the expansion of their businesses, but which cannot raise sufficient guarantees in the usual way, are refused these facilities by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association unless they find substantial guarantees such as would be asked for by any ordinary finance house; and will he endeavour to remove this refusal to advance capital to such industries as being contrary to the spirit of the Special Areas (Reconstruction Agreement) Act, 1936?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that, such guarantees are not required as

a general rule, but that when circumstances make it necessary they may be asked for to ensure that the applicant has sufficient faith in the business proposed by him.

Mr. ADAMS: Owing to the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of Mr. Malcolm Stewart's very strong criticism of this Association in his third Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that it would be a correct appreciation of what is said in the Report to call it strong criticism, but I have already stated that all the recommendations of the Commissioner are now being considered.

CASUAL WORKERS (GLASGOW DOCKS).

Mr. T. HENDERSON: asked the Minister of Labour, when the test case, as affecting casual workers' claim for benefit and refused because of a dispute between the dockers' union and the stevedores and employers at the Glasgow docks, is likely to be considered?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

DURHAM.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the following age groups: 18 to 21, 21 to 24, 24 to 30, and 30 to 35, in the administrative county of Durham, the borough of South Shields, and the borough of Sunderland; and what steps the Government are taking to provide them with work?

Mr. E. BROWN: The reply to the question includes a table of figures, and I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following table shows the numbers of unemployed persons between the ages of 18 and 35 years on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the administrative county of Durham and in the county boroughs of South Shields and Sunderland at 2nd November, 1936, distinguishing those age groups for which separate figures are available:

Age group
Administrative County of Durham.
SouthShields
Sunderland.


18 and under 21 years.
2,309
539
949


21 and under 25 years.
5,485
1,096
2,156


25 and under 35 years.
13,270
2,635
4,538

As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the Third Report of the Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales) Cmd. 5303, and to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Tuesday, 17th November.

RESERVISTS.

Captain RAMSAY: asked the Minister of Labour the estimated cost to the Exchequer if the Regulation by which the Public Assistance Board reckons 50 per cent. of a reservist's pay were abolished?

Mr. E. BROWN: This is not a question which could be dealt with as a separate matter apart from other issues, but, in so far as it is possible to make an estimate, the cost to the Exchequer, if reserve pay were disregarded in calculating allowances, would be in the neighbourhood of £50,000.

Captain RAMSAY: In view of the small figure concerned, will my right hon. Friend use his influence to have this concession given, to remove a real grievance felt in every part of the country?

Mr. BROWN: I will note what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says.

Mr. LAWSON: How do the Government expect to get recruits if they continue this kind of thing?

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (CHRISTMAS GRANT).

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider making a special grant at Christmas week to all old age and widow pensioners?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): No, Sir. The Government are not pre-

pared to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to this suggestion.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that these pensions were fixed many years ago, and that there has been an all-round relative improvement in conditions, will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury reconsider his reply with a view to seeing whether something cannot be done?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am afraid that I could not undertake to do so.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the introduction of some scheme to improve the conditions of the pensioners at the Coronation?

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not possible for the Financial Secretary to get the necessary legislation passed through the House without any discussion? It could be passed through in an hour.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is not the only consideration.

Sir H. CROFT: Will my hon. Friend also consider the various boons granted in Russia at Christmas time?

INCOME TAX (WOMEN INSPECTORS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of women employed by his Department at present in the cadet class of assistant inspectors of Income Tax, and the numbers employed as assistant inspectors and inspectors?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The number of women at present employed as assistant inspectors of taxes is 16. There is no separation of assistant inspectors of taxes into cadets and others. The number of women employed as inspectors of taxes is 17.

Mr. DAY: Is promotion obtained by examination or according to length of service?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I should require notice of that question.

BRITISH ARMY.

1ST ANTI-AIRCRAFT DIVISION (DRILL HALLS)

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of state for war how many new drill halls it has been decided to provide under the scheme for reorganising the Territorial Army in the London area; how many have actually been provided; and in how many cases has the site been acquired?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): The number of new drill halls required for the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, is 29 so far as can at present be foreseen. Sites have been obtained for 10 of these halls and I am negotiating for several others. No drill halls have actually yet been built. I should add that several of the units for which these new headquarters are required have not yet been raised and that the total number of drill halls required is greater than was originally expected, since in some cases it has proved impossible to retain units converted from other arms in their old drill halls. Pending the provision of the new drill halls, units will either remain in their existing headquarters or be housed in temporary accommodation near the site of their new headquarters.

Sir J. NALL: Can my hon. Friend say how many of the old drill halls are being used for this purpose?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Not without notice.

LONDON TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the strength of the staff at the headquarters of the County of London Territorial Association; and whether he is satisfied that this is sufficient to carry out speedily the reorganisation of the Territorial Army in the London area?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The exact strength of the staff in question is not known to the War Office, since Territorial Army associations are independently responsible, subject to War Office Regulations, for the administration of the Territorial Army units raised in their areas, and it is within their discretion to employ the necessary staff to meet their

requirements. I have no reason to think that the County Association is inadequately staffed, and I have forborne to call for the figures as I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in the matter. I would explain that, apart from the association for the county of London, there is also an association for the City of London, while, raised in what is generally termed Greater London come within the administration of the Territorial Army associations for the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent or Essex.

"LAURENTIC" (DISEMBARKATION ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, when the liner "Laurentic" arrived at Southampton in the early hours of 16th November with Army reservists returning from Palestine, officers' wives were immediately let aboard, while the women folk of other ranks were compelled to remain ashore in the rain and not permitted to see their men until disembarkation many hours later; whether such discrimination is a general practice; and, if so, what is its purpose?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I am informed that when this boat arrived at 1 a.m. on 16th November, only three people were waiting for her besides the embarkation staff, and all were allowed to go on board immediately. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; the third, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister not aware that womenfolk, the wives and members of the family of the rank and file, were there and stood on the dock for hours in the rain before they were allowed to meet their husbands and relatives?

Sir V. WAR RENDER: I have had careful inquiries made, and my information is that there was one wife waiting, and that she was immediately allowed on board ship.

SURPLUS HORSES AND MULES.

Mr. RADFORD: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the pitiable state of the survivors of the British Army horses and mules which were sold in Belgium in 1919; and whether, following


similar revelations with regard to those which were sold in Egypt about the same time, he will give instructions that in future no such sales shall be made abroad, but that all British Army horses and other transport animals, no longer required for service, shall either be brought back to Britain or painlessly destroyed by our Army authorities in the country where they may be?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to this matter. It has for some time been the policy of the Army Council that all horses and transport animals which become surplus to military requirements while abroad shall be either brought back to the United Kingdom or destroyed under military supervision, and instructions to this effect have been issued. None will be sold to local inhabitants.

Mr. RADFORD: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him to convey the assurance to his right hon. Friend that his decision will give widespread satisfaction throughout the country?

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. PRICE: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-service officers and men drawing pensions are being invited to save a portion of their pensions; that anxiety is felt by many recipients of these pensions that this may be used as a precedent for reducing them; and whether he can reassure these men that this will not be done?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Ramsbotham): Yes, Sir. Under a scheme made with the help of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer my Department offer to reserve any portion of a disability pension that the pensioner may desire to save, and to invest it for him. The scheme is, of course, entirely optional. I am aware that fears have been expressed by some pensioners as to the consequences of any saving by them, and I am glad of this opportunity to give the most positive assurance that their fears are unfounded. I have already taken steps to reassure

pensioners by notice in the public Press, and pensioners will individually receive a personal message on this point from me, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Major COLFOX: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the amount that a pensioner is allowed to save in this way is so very strictly limited to 5s. a week?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I should require notice of that question.

AFFORESTATION.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the standard weekly wage for forest holders at Kielder, Northumberland?

Colonel ROPNER (for the FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS): The minimum weekly wage for adult male forest workers at Kielder is 35s., but whenever possible piece-work rates are paid, and last month the weekly earnings of adult male forest workers at Kielder averaged 45s.

Colonel BROWN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this minimum wage of 35s. is payable only for less than half the year, and that with short time it means that men get less than 20s. a week on the average?

Colonel ROPNER: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension; 150 days is the minimum guaranteed period of employment for forest workers, and many of them are employed almost "whole time."

Colonel BROWN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether it is proposed to take, over Bewshaugh and Catcleagh farms at Kielder this summer; and, if so, in what way do they intend to dispose of the sheep on these farms?

Colonel ROPNER: It is not proposed to take over Catcleagh farm next year. It is proposed to take over the remaining part of Bewshaugh farm next summer; consequently it may be necessary to dispose of part of the sheep stock by sale by auction in the local market.

Colonel BROWN: Is it not possible to regulate those sales more carefully, so that there is more orderly marketing otherwise it causes loss to all the farmers round?

Colonel ROPNER: I do not think that that is the experience of the Forestry Commission, which has received no complaints in this respect.

Colonel BROWN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can give an estimate of the capital cost of starting one forest holding, including the cost of the cottage and the cost of acquiring the necessary amount of both plantable and unplantable land?

Colonel ROPNER: The average capital cost of a forest worker's holding including the land attached to it is £497. The cost of starting forest workers' holdings cannot be related to the cost of plantable and unplantable land.

POST OFFICE.

MAILS IN TRANSIT (LOSSES).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Postmaster-General the loss in letters carried in British trains, ships, or aeroplanes during the last 12 months; and whether senders of such letters as were registered received compensation?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that the particulars of losses desired by my hon. Friend are not available. Claims by the senders of any registered letters lost would be paid subject to the usual limits and conditions. Very few are received.

TELEPHONE CHARGES (DISTRICT NURSES).

Major OWEN: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is the practice of his Department to refuse to allow district nurses to obtain telephone installations under the resident charge, thus being deprived of the 50 free local calls; and whether in view of the fact that district nurses are supported by voluntary contributions, he will arrange that, in future, telephone installations for the use of district nurses shall have the benefit of the residence charge?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: The residence charge already applies in any case where nursing is not carried on at the nurse's house and where the telephone directory makes no reference to the subscriber's profession. I regret that I am unable to make any further concession. I could not discriminate between one class of telephone subscriber and another.

Major OWEN: In view of the fact that the Post Office service gets such a large income every year, could not something be done to enable district nurses in rural areas to have their telephones at the same rate as ordinary individuals? Why is it regarded as a business when all that is done is to bring succour and help to those in need?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view, but we have to consider other claims which are made by hospitals, doctors, chemists, rest homes, charity houses, farmers, life saving societies, fire brigades, and numerous other institutions, which claim they are not run on commercial lines, and I think he will agree that discrimination would be absolutely impossible.

Major OWEN: Is it not possible for the very able men in the Post Office to discriminate between what is a real charitable object and those other things which are not really charitable?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: It is a matter of opinion, and hon. Members might claim that the societies I have mentioned are really charitable objects.

PARKHURST PRISON.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reason for building a new punishment prison at Parkhurst enclosed by high walls when the existing one was completed as recently as 1927; and what labour is being used for its construction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Hitherto, prisoners at Parkhurst Prison who have to be specially dealt with for prison offences, have been placed in cells attached to one of the ordinary halls. It is desirable that prisoners who are undergoing special treatment as a result of a disciplinary award should be


located separately from the others, and for this purpose a block of cells is now being built away from the ordinary halls. The building work is being done by inmates of the neighbouring Borstal Institution because it provides good industrial training for them. There is no foundation for a suggestion, which I have seen, that the work was given to Borstal inmates because the convicts refused to do it.

Mr. GALLACHER: In view of the great uneasiness felt in connection with the families of those who are affected, would the Home Secretary consider arranging for every Member of Parliament to get a copy of Mr. McCarthy's book "Walls have Mouths," so that they can understand the position?

PRISON SERVICE (NIGHT WATCHMEN).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Home Secretary what hours are at present worked by night watchmen in His Majesty's prisons; and whether he will take steps to see that they are reduced to a maximum of 8 hours in the 24?

Sir J. SIMON: The hours of duty of night patrols are six shifts of 10 hours each a week. As I said in reply to a question on the 12th of this month, the nature of the duties of night patrols is so different from the nature of the duties performed by officers employed during the working day that I do not think there is a case for assimilating their hours of duty.

HOSIERY WORKERS (BOREHAM WOOD).

Mr. OLIVER: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a trade dispute of hosiery workers at the Keystone Knitting Mills, Limited, Boreham Wood, Herts, where the employers are attempting to force a reduction of 40 per cent. on former rates, contrary to a national agreement; and whether, in view of this company endeavouring to destroy the basis of an agreement which is being observed by at least 80 per cent. of the employers in the industry, he will agree to meet a deputation of the unions concerned?

Mr. E. BROWN: I received a request from the unions for a deputation for the

purpose of discussing the possibility of an inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers, and while indicating that the inquiries already made have disclosed the main facts, I have asked the unions, if they desire to press the idea of an inquiry, to be good enough to indicate what would be the nature, scope and purpose of such an inquiry, in order that I may give the matter further consideration.

Mr. OLIVER: Do I understand from that reply that the Minister has consented to meet a deputation from the districts concerned?

Mr. BROWN: I have asked for certain information and then I shall act accordingly, and I shall let the hon. Member know what happens.

ROYAL NAVY (SPANISH REFUGEES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the British Navy has evacuated many Spanish refugees from ports in the hands of the Spanish Government, they have also evacuated any from ports in the hands of the rebels; and do the insurgent forces allow refugees of the Left to leave?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, a considerable number of Spanish refugees of the Left have been evacuated from insurgent territory on the north coast, as the result of the exchange scheme arranged by Dr. Junod of the International Red Cross.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible to evacuate any of the Rio Tinto miners, or people in La Linea?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I should like notice of that question.

PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Minister of Health whether any statistics exist to show whether the prevalence in this


country of illegal operations for abortion by unqualified persons is a contributive factor to the high rate of maternal mortality; and whether, in view of the recommendations of the British Medical Association, following the report of its special committee, His Majesty's Government will consider setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into the operation and results of the present law relating to abortion, with a view to its reform?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the second part of the question will receive my careful consideration when I have before me the report, now in course of preparation, of the special investigations recently made by officers of my Department into maternal mortality in various parts of the country.

IMPORTED BUTTER (MOISTURE CONTENT).

Mr. DALTON: asked the Minister of Health what is the average percentage of moisture in imported butter from New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Denmark, Sweden, Poland and the Soviet Union, respectively; what is the maximum percentage permitted in butter sold at retail; and what is the average actual percentage according to the most recent information at his disposal?

Sir K. WOOD: I have no information with regard to the Irish Free State, but I am sending the hon. Member some particulars with regard to the other countries, which I have obtained from the Government chemist. With regard to the second part of the question, butter which, on retail sale, contains more then 16 per cent. of water, is presumed not to be genuine, unless the contrary is proved. I regret that there is no information available with regard to the last part of the question.

Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not endeavour to obtain information upon the last part of the question, and as to whether large profits are being made by putting water into pefectly good butter?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know about that side of it, but I am making some inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

PALESTINE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any information in the possession of his Department showing whether Arab discontent in Palestine is due to internal causes only, or not?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As the underlying causes of the recent disturbances in Palestine are a matter to be inquired into by the Royal Commission, I think it would be improper for me to attempt to analyse them while the commission is engaged on its inquiry into them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the confidential reports sent him by the air service in Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen some of them.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the basic cause of the trouble not the promise made to the Arabs during the War and the contradictory promise made to the Jews?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the course of business on Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. On Thursday we propose to take the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Public Order Bill. If time permits other Orders will be taken, including the Motion to approve the Italian Clearing Office Amendment Order. The House will remember that the Committee stage of the Trunk Roads Bill was announced for Thursday; that will now be postponed to a later date, as we are anxious to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill I have mentioned.

INFANTICIDE.

Mr. JAGGER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a woman who wilfully causes the death of her child being under the age of eight years may, under certain conditions, be convicted of infanticide.
In moving this Motion, I desire to make it clear that I have no intention what-


ever of dealing with the controversial question of the abolition or the non-abolition of the death penalty. The proposed Bill, which is of one Clause, is merely to legalise what has been the consistent practice for nearly 90 years, and to remove the legal anomaly and legal cruelty involved in sentencing a woman to death when it is perfectly well known to everybody, except to the unfortunate prisoner, that there is no intention of that sentence being carried out. During the past 12 months there has been six cases of that character. We have had the spectacle of Judges of the Realm slurring over the dreadful words of the sentence, and of one judge telling the unfortunate prisoner that she need take no notice of the dread sentence he was about to pass upon her.
I submit that in this class of case there is a very real need for doing something more than was done in the Infanticide Act, 1922. I might perhaps, out of the 11 cases which have occurred in recent years, cite two. One was that of a girl of 18, who drowned an illegitimate child of 18 months. The child's father, who was a married man, failed to pay alimony as ordered by the Court, and, eventually the girl—who, according to the medical evidence had only the mentality of a child of 11—was sentenced to death and remained in the condemned cell for 13 days before being reprieved. Another and more recent case is that of a young woman of 26, a domestic servant. There was an illegitimate child; the father failed to pay alimony; she tried to earn money to pay foster-parents, but got behind with the payments, the foster-parents ordered her to remove the child, and she jumped into the river with the child in her arms. The child was drowned, and the mother was saved. Then there was the almost farce of a judicial trial for murder, a verdict of "Guilty" brought in, the sentence of death, and in this case a reprieve, I believe, within 24 hours.
What I and those who support me desire is that the Infanticide Act, 1922, should be repealed, and that it should be replaced by this one-clause Measure, which would so amend the original Act as to make it possible for juries, in circumstances of this kind, to extend and amplify the present limit, which in practice is interpreted by the judges as

being about 21 days, so as to cover mothers who commit acts of this kind under extreme stress arising from other causes than the immediate effects of childbirth.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jagger, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Vyvyan Adams, and Mr. Lovat-Fraser.

INFANTICIDE BILL,

"to provide that a woman who wilfully causes the death of her child being under the age of eight years may, under certain conditions, be convicted of infanticide," presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Marriage Bill): Sir Francis Acland, The Attorney-General, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Burke, Colonel Clarke, Mr. Crossley, Mr. De la Bère, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Mr. George Griffiths, Mr. Alan Herbert, Sir George Hume, Miss Rathhone, The Solicitor-General, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Spens, Mr. Henry Strauss, Mr. Thurtle, Sir Arnold Wilson, and Sir John Withers.

Report to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions, with an Appendix, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has now been able to arrive at any decision in regard to the improvement in the ventilation of the Chamber and galleries of the House of Commons; and can he make a statement?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): I would refer the hon. Member to the Note circulated by my Noble Friend last Session. The experimental heating panels referred to therein have been fixed and consideration in the light of results will be given to the question of completing the installation.

BASTARDY PROCEEDINGS.

Sir A. WILSON: asked the Minister of Health what new or altered forms of proceedings in matters of bastardy have been issued under the Money Payments Justices Procedure Act, 1935?

Sir K. WOOD: New forms were prescribed by the Bastardy (Forms) Amendment Order, 1935, which came into operation on the 1st January, 1936. I am sending a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY.

3.53 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
That this House approves the ratification of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, signed in London on the 26th August, 1936.
This Treaty is the outcome of many years of history and of many months of arduous negotiation. The many difficulties which were confronted in the course of the negotiations were only overcome by the active desire of both sides to reach an agreement. There was a determination to agree, and, as a result, happily, we believe, both for Egypt and for this country, an agreement has been reached and is embodied in this Treaty. It is not the first time by any means that attempts have been made to negotiate a treaty between this country and Egypt. The best known of the negotiations in recent years have been those between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and Sarwat Pasha, and those between the late Mr. Arthur Henderson and Nahas Pasha. In certain respects, however, the negotiation of this Treaty differed from that of any others which preceded it.
Profiting by the experience of the past, we decided to begin with those clauses in the treaty negotiations which have created the most difficulty heretofore, that is to say, the military clauses and the clauses relating to the Sudan. I am quite sure that that was a wise decision. Then, on this occasion, His Majesty's Government were able to negotiate with Egyptian negotiators who represented a united front in Egypt, a united front formed for the purpose of inviting negotiation and of carrying it through. In view of the fate of some past negotiations, the House will appreciate the importance of having a united Egyptian delegation, representative of almost all parties, with which to deal, an advantage which we think may be of considerable importance when the time comes to bring the Treaty into force. Then, finally, there was this further change—a geographical change—that these negotiations, unlike most of their predecessors, took place in Cairo. This again had the advantage that the Egyptian negotiators were able to keep in close touch with their own advisers

and with all sections of Egyptian opinion, without, as would have been the case if they had come to this country, dislocating the administration of the country meanwhile. Inevitably that arrangement did place an additional strain upon our High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Miles Lampson, and we do owe a very special debt of gratitude to his untiring labours. We could have had no more patient, no more persistent, no more trusted negotiator. We owe very warm thanks also to the naval, military, and air advisers who assisted Sir Miles Lampson, who collaborated in the negotiations, and to whom, I know, Sir Miles Lampson feels the greatest gratitude for their loyal assistance, and also the greatest admiration for the wisdom of their counsel.
The treaty which we are now asking the House to endorse is a practical arrangement, we claim, an agreement in which each of the parties, by protecting its own interests and respecting the interests of the other, has jointly striven to promote the common good. There is, in the circumstances, no cause for either party to attempt to represent this result as a triumph for itself, and for our part we have not the least intention of striving to do anything of that kind. Here I would like to call the attention of the House to some remarks made by the Prime Minister of Egypt, to whose determination and good will a large part of the success of this negotiation is due—remarks His Excellency made in introducing the treaty to the Chamber of Deputies in Cairo:
From its inception the Wafd have had as their programme an agreement with Great Britain realising the complete independence of the country and safeguarding the British interests which are not incompatible with that independence.
Again the ideas with which the Egyptian Prime Minister has approached these negotiations are illustrated in another passage of his speech, in which he says that this country (the United Kingdom) has a particular interest in guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Suez Canal, inasmuch as it constitutes an artery of British communications., Further, Nahas Pasha said, referring to the necessity of safeguarding the independence of the territory of Egypt, that it was a piece of good fortune for Egypt to conclude an alliance with this country (United Kingdom), a Power strong on


land, on sea, and in the air, which exerted a powerful influence in international affairs … and whose; assistance in the sending of armed forces under the treaty would be unlimited. I quote those statements as evidence of the clear understanding of both the individual and the mutual interests of the two countries which the Egyptian Prime Minister's statements show. On our side when, by the declaration of February, 1922, we terminated the Protectorate and recognised Egypt as an independent sovereign State, we reserved four points to our absolute discretion, but we indicated then our intention to reach agreement in respect of those four points by free discussion and friendly accommodation on both sides. Those four points, the House will recollect, which we reserved at the time, were: first, the security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt; second, the defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression, or interference either direct or indirect; third, the protection of foreign interests and the rights of minorities; and, fourth, the Sudan. In entering on these negotiations it has been our intention, by reaching agreement on these four points, to complete Egyptian independence and sovereignty and thus to satisfy Egyptian aspirations, while at the same time protecting our own and advantaging, as we believe we have, the joint interests of the two countries.
As I proceed to go into the terms of the Treaty itself I think the House will agree that the Treaty does safeguard what is of vital importance to both countries and does ensure valuable advantages to both. I am not going to weary the House by going into the past history of our relations with Egypt. Though a matter of much interest, it is also one with which most Members of the House are extremely familiar. But I would recall, if I might, just one fact out of the past, which is important if the possibility of misunderstanding is to be avoided. For the first 32 years of the British military occupation of Egypt, Egypt continued to be what it had been before our occupation, a State under the suzerainty of Turkey but enjoying an extensive autonomy under the rule of the Khedivial family.
The British troops entered Egypt not to oppose the Government but to suppress

a military revolt of a nationalist character which had broken out against the Khedive under Arabi Pasha. They went there to restore order, which had been disturbed with serious results to foreign lives and property. They remained to maintain order, while under the advice and supervision of Sir Evelyn Baring the conditions of order, that is to say sound finance and efficient and disinterested administration, were established with the help of foreign advisers, mostly British. I mention that in order that the House may be reminded of the circumstances. British troops conquered the rebel troops in Egypt, but the country of Egypt as such we did not set out to conquer. After the War, when Turkish suzerainty was in process of final liquidation, the Egyptian aspirations for independence, as elsewhere in the world at that time, were growing under the stimulus of events both international and local. They culminated in the years immediately following the War in an outburst of violent nationalism. On our side we then sent out the Milner Mission to Egypt in 1921. That mission failed to reach agreement with the Egyptian Government, but on their return His Majesty's Government, in issuing their declaration in February, 1922, terminated the Protectorate and, as I have said, reserved the four points to which I have referred.
That brings us up to the present day. I think it will be useless to deny that the regime which has resulted from this recognition of independence and the reservation of those four points has been an uneasy one. It has been uneasy because Egypt has been expectant but unsatisfied. It was bound also to be anomalous when, though His Majesty's Government remained the actual Power in occupation, with all that that entailed, Egypt was entirely self-governing and the number of British officials was being rapidly reduced. You have there the anomaly. We had power in the military sense, while others had the responsibility of government and administration. Many attempts were made to reach the agreement which had been envisaged by this Declaration of 1922, and to-day we are in a position to ask the House to approve the agreement which has now been come to. It was in December of last year that the United Front was formed in Egypt, and its formation created the condition which


His Majesty's Government had postulated for successful negotiation. This condition and the request of the United Front that negotiations should be begun, were the reasons for the opening of these discussions. It would have been foolish of us to have neglected the opportunity that was thus offered, even if we could, in view of our past professions, have done so with much credit to ourselves.
Now I will say a few words about the articles of the Treaty themselves. It may, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House if instead of going through the Treaty article by article I deal with it by subjects, because I think that in that way it will be easier for the House to follow the scope and contents of the Treaty. The first subject with which I would like to deal is the alliance and the military provisions connected therewith. If hon. Members will turn to the White Paper they will find that the provisions which deal with the alliance are in Article 4, which actually states the alliance. It establishes the alliance between the two countries. Other articles that deal with it are Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, together with a long annexe to Article 8, the first 13 paragraphs of the agreed Minute on page 15 of the White Paper, and the third Egyptian Note signed in London, which is on page 19 of the White Paper.
The Treaty in its present form continues, according to the provisions of Article 16, for a period of 20 years, after which, if either party so request, the two will negotiate with a view to revising its terms by agreement in a manner appropriate to the then existing circumstances. If neither party desires revision, then the Treaty will go on as it is. Any revision, however, must provide for the continuation of the alliance in accordance with the principles contained in Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7, and these articles stipulate four things to which I will draw attention. The four things are, first, that an alliance is established: second, that neither party will adopt an attitude in regard to foreign Powers or conclude a Treaty inconsistent with the alliance: third, that they will consult each other with a view to the peaceful settlement of any dispute with a third State threatening the risk of rupture with that State: fourth, in the event of

either party being engaged in a war the other, subject to its obligations under the Covenant, will come to its aid as an ally.
This means, of course, that His Majesty's Government must protect Egyptian territory from invasion. To this I am sure the House will take no exception. The safety of Egypt is the great common interest which unites that country and the United Kingdom. Because of the Suez Canal the integrity of Egypt is a vital interest of the British Empire as well as of Egypt herself. Egypt then has the advantage of this promise of protection by the United Kingdom. She, however, is not obliged by the Treaty to send troops outside Egypt to protect British territory. That is an undertaking beyond her present military capacity. But it is stipulated that the aid which Egypt shall bring to the United Kingdom in time of war—and not only in time of war but also in that of imminent menace of war or an apprehended international emergency—the help that Egypt then brings is to consist in furnishing on Egyptian territory all the facilities and assistance in its power. To make this Egyptian aid effective all the necessary administrative and legislative measures, including the establishment of martial law and an effective censorship, will be taken by Egypt. These facilities and this assistance which Egypt will give include the use of Egyptian ports, aerodromes, and means of communication, and, what is more important, these facilities, as explained in the first agreed Minute which is on page 15, include Egyptian permission and facilities for the sending of British forces or reinforcements to Egypt in these emergencies. If His Majesty's Government are to fulfil their obligation to protect Egyptian territory, which of course includes the Suez Canal, these facilities are obviously necessary; they are necessary for Egypt as much as for the United Kingdom.
But this is the point to which I wish to draw attention. These four principles which I have outlined must figure in any revision of the present Treaty that may be agreed upon after the 20 years for which this Treaty lasts. The House will appreciate the importance of that. Its importance is due to the fact that it lays down the basis on which the Council of the League or any other body that may be agreed upon by the two parties, must


work if at the end of 20 years they are called upon to decide a difference regarding the terms of revision. We hope and expect, of course, that no outside body will have to be called upon. We hope and expect that after 20 years, no less than to-day, we shall be able to settle these matters between ourselves as friends and allies. But if that expectation fails, that is the basis on which the Council of the League, or whoever it may be, will have to take its decision. The only other remark in this connection that I wish to make is that hon. Members will see from the Treaty that negotiations for revision may be entered upon at any time after 10 years, but only if both parties wish to do so.
From that I want to come to, for us, an extremely important part of the Treaty, the clauses that deal with the Suez Canal. I think the House would wish to know that His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, while they are, of course, not signatories to the Treaty, were kept informed at every stage of the course of the negotiations. I had the advantage during the summer several times of having conversations on this subject with the Dominion High Commissioners and also with members of certain Dominion Governments who happened to be in London at the time. After the conclusion of the Treaty, a statement was made by the Minister for External Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia in the Commonwealth Senate which I should like to quote to the House:
In view of Australia's vital interest in the security of British Empire communications by way of Egypt, the Commonwealth Government was in the closest touch with the United Kingdom Government both before the initiation of negotiations and throughout the proceedings and each detail of their development was carefully followed. In London there were frequent discussions between the Secretary of State (Mr. Eden), the Minister of Commerce (Dr. Page), the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) and the High Commissioner (Mr. Bruce). I shall not attempt to summarise the provisions of the Treaty. It has received wide approval both in Great Britain and Egypt, and the general opinion is that it will have the effect of converting a most uncertain and difficult relationship into a friendly alliance. If Honourable Senators have studied the clauses in some detail they will, I am sure, be satisfied that everything has been done to ensure the continued security of those Empire communication as through Egypt which mean so much to us in Australia.

Another Dominion which also, for geographical reasons, has a special interest on the matter is New Zealand. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Honourable Walter Nash, the New Zealand Minister for Finance, who happens to be in London at the present time, has joined in expressing satisfaction that an agreed settlement has been secured. In his view it was a courageous settlement and reflects credit on those who conducted the difficult negotiations, both in the immediate past and in the earlier stages. Mr. Nash, of course, expressed no opinion on the detailed provisions relating to military dispositions, but I thought the House would wish to have those two expressions of opinion from the two Dominions which are, perhaps, most closely interested.
Now I come to Article 8, which deals with the Canal. Article 8 provides that, whilst the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt, it is recognised by the parties not only as a universal means of communication but also as an essential means of communication between the different parts of the British Empire. With a view to ensuring in collaboration with the Egyptian forces the defence of the Canal, the United Kingdom is authorised by Egypt in time of peace and tranquillity, until such time as the Egyptian Army is capable of ensuring the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal by its own resources, to maintain forces in a zone on the Suez Canal. These forces, according to paragraph (1) of the Annexe to Article 8, shall not exceed in time of peace, when no emergency exists, for the land forces 10,000 men and for the Royal Air Force 400 pilots plus the necessary ancillary personnel for administrative and technical duties. His Majesty's Government are authorised to maintain these British forces there in time of peace and tranquillity, but in time of war, menace of war or apprehended international emergency, His Majesty's Government are at liberty to increase these numbers if it appears necessary to do so for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations as an ally to defend Egypt, including the Suez Canal. At the end of 20 years the question whether the presence of British forces in time of peace is no longer necessary owing to the fact that the Egyptian Army has become able to defend the Canal by its own re-


sources may, if the High Contracting Parties do not agree among themselves, be submitted to the Council of the League for decision in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant as it now stands, or submitted to some other person or body agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with any procedure they may agree to. Even though the Treaty be revised—this is the point that I must again emphasise, for it is of great importance—such revision must provide for the continuation of the alliance in accordance with the principles amongst others of Article 7, to which I have just referred. Article 7, with the agreed minutes which relate to it, provides for the despatch by His Majesty's Government to Egypt of forces or reinforcements in the event of war, menace of war or apprehended international emergency. The House will observe that Article 8 expressly recognises that the Suez Canal, whilst an integral part of Egypt, is an essential means of communication between different parts of the British Empire, and that the United Kingdom is entitled under the Treaty to be assured that the Canal will be adequately protected by the alliance for all time. In these circumstances I think the House will agree that that Article can be regarded as a satisfactory one from the point of view of both countries.

Mr. TINKER: What is the strength of the Egyptian Forces in comparison with ours? What will they have to supply?

Mr. EDEN: That I cannot give offhand. I do not think it has been agreed. I will try to get an answer at the end of the day.
I come to another point in connection with the Canal which is also of great importance and interest to the House, and that is the question of the accommodation and the location of the troops. The Egyptian Government will, at their own expense, make available the requisite land and build the necessary barracks for the British troops in the Canal zone with full amenities over and above the accommodation that exists in the zone already. There is already accommodation for 2,000 land forces and 750 members of the air force. The area selected for the British troops is at Geneifa in a cultivated area along the shores of the Great

Bitter Lake some 80 miles from Cairo and 150 from Alexandria. His Majesty's Government will make a financial contribution towards the expense. This will consist of the cost of the barrack accommodation for 2,000 of the land forces and a repayment of the sum spent by Egypt before the War on some new barracks in Cairo which we used without vacating the old barracks which they had been designed to replace. There are detailed provisions showing that the barracks are to be constructed in accordance with all reasonable requirements of His Majesty's Government.
The Egyptian Government will also construct roads, the most important of which —for the purpose of illustrating this the House will be aware that there is a map available—will be that across the Delta from the Canal zone to Alexandria and that from the Canal zone to Cairo. The Egyptian Government will also improve railway facilities in the Canal zone. When this work, the construction of these barracks and the building of these roads and railways, has been carried out to the satisfaction of both parties—an arbitral board will be set up to decide any differences—the British forces in Egypt, other than those already stationed on the Canal, will be withdrawn from the Canal zone. This applies to the forces in Cairo and its immediate vicinity, in Heliopolis and in Helouan. The forces in Alexandria are in a special category. They will remain in their present position for a period not exceeding eight years, which is the time considered necessary for the final completion of the new barrack accommodation on the Canal for the forces in Alexandria and the improvement of certain roads and railways.

Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make one point clear? I understand that the forces at Alexandria are to move within eight years. Is there any period set for the movement of the forces in Cairo?

Mr. EDEN: The expectation is that all the buildings necessary, both for Alexandria and for Cairo, will have been completed at the end of eight years. That is the longest period that we think necessary for the total construction, therefore, that is the longest period for the movement of all the troops in Cairo and Alexandria.

Mr. DALTON: This lays down eight years, with special reference to Alexandria in paragraph 18. Paragraph 8, which relates to Cairo, contains no time limit of any kind.

Mr. EDEN: The only time limit is the time that the construction will take.

Mr. DALTON: It may be less than eight years?

Mr. EDEN: Certainly. The maximum in respect of Alexandria is eight years.
Then, as regards the roads, there will be improvements made to the road from Cairo to Suez and from Cairo to Alexandria, and a new development, the importance of which the House will realise, from Alexandria to Mersa Matruh in the Western Desert. Improvements of railway facilities are to be made between Ismailia and Alexandria and Alexandria and Mersa Matruh. The Egyptian Government undertakes to complete all these works—this again is a maximum time—before the expiry of eight years.
I should like to explain some of the reasons which have made it possible for the Government to agree to the withdrawal of British forces from the cities themselves. This is due to a combination of two factors. First, our forces are now mechanised, with the result that when the Treaty provisions for the construction of roads and rail communications have been carried out it will be possible to move the troops quickly to any threatened point for the protection of Egypt against external aggression, for which purpose under the conditions prevailing hitherto it was necessary to keep troops at the centres in order that they might be readily available. Moreover, the Royal Air Force are given permission by the Treaty to fly wherever they consider it necessary for training purposes, but only to fly over populated area when necessity demands it. The Egyptian Air Force is given reciprocal permission in respect of British territory. The facilities to which I have just referred, and other facilities for the Royal Air Force in the Treaty or the annexes, assure our Air Force of all the facilities required for training purposes. Thirdly, the areas earmarked for training our forces—which are also shown on the map—throughout the year are considered adequate, and provision

is made for their considerable extension in February and March, which are the months when manoeuvres normally take place. Finally, to sum up the question of the moving of the troops, I would say that, so far as health and comfort are concerned, the troops will, if anything, be the better for the move to the canal. That I say not on my own ignorant authority, but on that of those better qualified to speak of such matters than I.
I will say one word about the Military Mission. While the British personnel at present with the Egyptian Army will be withdrawn, the Egyptian Government, in the interests of the alliance, will avail themselves, for such time as they think necessary, of the services of a British Mission, which will assist in an advisory capacity in the training of the Egyptian Army and the Egyptian Air Force. Moreover, we undertake to receive and provide proper training in this country for such personnel in the Egyptian forces which the Egyptian Government may wish to send to this country for the purpose of being trained. No Egyptian personnel will be sent to any other country for training, except in the very unlikely event of our not having sufficient training facilities or vacancies at our disposal. The armament and the equipment of the Egyptian Army will not differ in type from those of our own forces.
I come to one other question of particular interest to those concerned with the Services. That is the immunities and privileges which our forces in Egypt will enjoy. They will enjoy privileges in jurisdictional and fiscal matters, and these are defined in a special Convention agreed to between the two Governments. Among other things, the areas which are allotted to our forces, our temporary camps and our training and manoeuvre areas, when being used for such, are inviolable and subject to the exclusive control and authority of the appropriate British authorities. British forces will enjoy freedom of movement between British camps and to and from the ordinary points of access to Egyptian territory. They will enjoy unrestricted communication by radio, telephone, telegraph, etc., and they will have the use of Egyptian railways on the present terms and conditions. Their official correspondence will enjoy the same immunity as


that of diplomatic representatives of foreign States. The British forces will be immune from taxation, except in respect of privately owned property. The agreements between the two Governments dealing with imports and exports by the British naval, military and air authorities, and by that most important organisation the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, will remain in force subject to revision in certain circumstances. During the transition period between the coming into force of the Treaty and the withdrawal of the British Forces to the Canal zone, those forces will continue to enjoy the same facilities as they enjoy at present.
Now I come to the Sudan, which is dealt with in Article 11 of the Treaty. While the parties reserve liberty, as the Article says, to conclude new conventions regarding the Sudan in the future, it is agreed that the administration of the Sudan continues to be that resulting from the Condominium Agreements of 1899. The result is that the Governor-General of the Sudan continues to exercise the powers conferred upon him by those Agreements. It is agreed that the primary aim of the administration must be the welfare of the Sudanese. The question of sovereignty over the Sudan is reserved in the Treaty itself. Therefore, both the British and the Egyptian flags will continue to fly at Khartoum, and the status of the Sudan as a territory under the Condominium is illustrated in the Annexe to Article 11, which provides that the participation of the Sudan in international conventions is effected by the joint action of His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government. The appointments and promotions of officials in the Sudan remain, as heretofore, vested in the Governor-General. Where no qualified Sudanese are available, the Governor-General will select suitable candidates of British and Egyptian nationality when making new appointments. According to paragraph XV of the agreed Minute, the appointment of Egyptian nationals must be governed by the number of suitable vacancies at the time and by the qualifications of the candidates. Promotion will be irrespective of nationality up to any rank by selection in accordance with individual

merit, the selection, as I said before, to be entirely in the hands of the Governor-General himself.
In addition to Sudanese troops, British and Egyptian troops shall be placed at the disposal of the Governor-General for the defence of the Sudan, and in accordance with paragraph XVI of the agreed Minute the Governor-General will give immediate consideration, in consultation with an Egyptian military officer of high rank who will be sent to the Sudan, to the question of the number of Egyptian troops required and the places where they will be stationed. That again, is a matter for the decision of the Governor-General. Egyptian immigration to the Sudan shall continue unrestricted except for reasons of public order and health.

Mr. DALTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of troops in the Sudan, is there any limit to be imposed upon Egyptian troops coming into the Sudan in this Article?

Mr. EDEN: The limit depends on the Governor-General's choice and decision.

Mr. DALTON: No numerical limit?

Mr. EDEN: The Governor-General decides how many and where.
In matters of commerce and immigration and the-possession of property there shall be no discrimination in the Sudan between British subjects and Egyptian nationals. Financial questions in regard to the Sudan, which have been troublesome in the past, have been agreed as a result of negotiation which has taken place since this Treaty was signed, and the White Paper which describes them was, I think, laid only yesterday. I will not weary the House with the details now beyond saying that the Agreement is generally a satisfactory one, we consider, and if any hon. Member wishes for particulars we shall be glad to give them. But I ought to state, and the House will probably remember, that in recent years the Egyptian Government have paid an annual subvention of three-quarters of a million Egyptian pounds to the Sudan. They have agreed not to withdraw this subvention in future, except after giving fair notice.
Having said that on the Sudan, I come to almost the last chapter in these negotiations, namely, the question of the security of foreigners and the police. The House will see that these subjects are dealt with in Article 12, and in the second


Note, which is on page 18 of the White Paper, signed by Nahas Pasha, in London, in August. The House will notice that His Majesty's Government recognise under Article 12 that the responsibility for the lives and property of foreigners in. Egypt falls exclusively upon the Egyptian Government. The Egyptian Government on their part undertake that they will ensure the fulfilment of their obligation in this respect, which is a Treaty undertaking on their part. This Article settles one of the four reserved points to which I have referred earlier this afternoon. The settlement of this reserved point is one of the main objects of the Treaty. It is settled, I think the House will agree, in the only possible way because responsibility for internal law and order is the most elementary part of independence, and the safety of foreigners is bound up with it. It is agreed by the Note on page 18 from Nahas Pasha that, in pursuance of this article, the European Bureau of the Public Security Department, which has special charge of the security of foreigners, will disappear after the ratification of the Treaty. But for a further five years after that the European element will be retained in the Egyptian City Police, which will for that period remain under the command of British officers. The services of one-fifth of the European officials in the police will be dispensed with annually. The method of the practical application of this article in the manner best chosen to safeguard the interests of all concerned is at present under active discussion, but I would like to assure the House that, as far as the European police officers and the constables are concerned, to both of whom not only this country, but Egypt is under a considerable debt of gratitude, we are going to do everything in our power to ensure to them reasonably good opportunities for them in the future. We have already been in communication with other Government Departments concerned, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to the satisfaction of everybody to meet the problem of the future of these men.
I must say one word upon the subject of foreign experts. The Treaty lays down, and the Egyptian Government agree, that if they engage the services of foreign experts, they will generally prefer British subjects who have the necessary qualifications.
I want to say a word on the subject of the Capitulations. Article 13 of the Treaty and its Annexe deal with the Capitulations. Perhaps before saying anything about the details, I might make one reference to the subject of the Capitulations. Egypt became subject to the Capitulations as a part of the Ottoman Empire. That is the origin of the Capitulations in Egypt. Though there have been developments to a greater extent in that country than in most States which have had the régime of Capitulations, now there is practically no country left in the world except Egypt herself which has a regime of this kind, and it has formed part of all previous draft Treaties that this system should come to an end. I do not think that the House will wish for a detailed account of these provisions, but there is one matter to which I must refer, and that is the Mixed Courts. The Mixed Courts in Egypt have been a most successful institution. They were originally established in 1875 because of the virtual chaos of the judicial system in Egypt which prevailed at that time. They were meant to last for a short period, but in effect they worked very well and they have become a very important part of the judicial system of Egypt. They were accorded certain further powers of a legislative character, namely, to render Egyptian legislation of which they approved applicable to foreigners. I do not want to go into details as regards these Mixed Courts, except to say that one of the matters which will have to be discussed is the period for which the Mixed Courts, with the increased judicial jurisdiction it is proposed to give them, must be retained. That is one of the matters which will have to be discussed at the conference between the Capitulatory Powers which will take place in the near future.
We are now engaged in discussing some of these points with the Egyptian Government, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Egyptian Government, and I think this announcement will be greeted with general satisfaction, are seeking the revision of this system, which has disappeared practically everywhere else in the world, by international agreement and by negotiation, which we believe is the correct method for handling these matters. We feel very strongly that in


this matter the adoption of the Tight method deserves success and that the Capitulatory Powers should receive the approaches of Egypt in a reasonable and conciliatory manner. At any rate, we shall do our utmost to secure an agreed and rapid solution of the problem, and if the same spirit prevails elsewhere we feel that there should be no great difficulty in the matter.
Now before I come to the end of what has been a long survey, I will deal briefly with one or two other matters which are mentioned in the Treaty. Article 3 states that Egypt will apply for membership of the League of Nations and her application will be supported by His Majesty's Government under conditions described by Article 1 of the Covenant. Article 2, and this is an article of importance, provides that the two parties will each be represented in the Capital of the other by an Ambassador, and since His Majesty the King will be the first Sovereign represented in Egypt by an Ambassador, the British Ambassador will be considered senior to the other foreign diplomatic representatives in that country. Such is the document which was signed by the British and Egyptian representatives on 26th August in London.
I should like, in conclusion, to remind not only this House but Egypt also that the representatives of His Majesty's Government signed this Treaty fully conscious not only of the importance of its letter but, perhaps even more, the importance of its spirit, and are sincerely determined to conform their actions to that spirit. We shall act in future not only as we have done in the past as the friend of Egypt but also as a freely accepted ally. What is going to be the result of this Treaty? For the complexities and the anomalies of a relationship which was not freely accepted by both parties we hope to substitute the confidence and goodwill of allies working together in a partnership voluntarily entered into. The interests of Egypt and of this country must always be not separate but joint, not at odds but interdependent. We therefore look forward to seeing the two countries working together in unity and amity and so contributing, as the text of the Treaty says, to the maintenance of peace. In these times of stress and strain in the modern

world it is well I think to have eradicated a cause of irritation and, to that extent, of weakness, to have established in its place the prospect of good feeling and, to that extent, of strength, and to have replaced the possibility of strife by the prospect of concord.
To think of modern Egypt is to think of Lord Cromer. The benefits which his long and unwearying work of reform conferred on Egypt are apparent to-day. When Lord Cromer went to Egypt the administration at that time, under Ismail Pasha, had produced chaos, poverty and wretchedness. Lord Cromer and a band of foreign advisers, mostly British, with the help of some far-sighted Egyptians, brought order out of chaos and restored justice and hope to the Egyptian people. I should like to remind the House of this, that whatever may be popularly said or thought, Lord Cromer's work was directed towards the ultimate achievement of Egyptian autonomy. If, and I think it is true, the influence produced by the, war hastened the process and gave a development of a different character from that which he foresaw, his general aim was none the less in a large measure attained in 1922 and is I believe very largely attained by this present Treaty.
No doubt the new regime will meet with difficulties in its earlier stages. We must expect that, but if those difficulties are met in a spirit of friendly accommodation, of tolerance and of realism—which I gratefully acknowledge was displayed throughout these negotiation by Nahas Pasha and his Egyptian colleagues and I am persuaded by our own representatives—I am confident that they will not prove insuperable, and that both our countries will benefit from the operation of the provisions of this Treaty which I am privileged to recommend to the House to-day.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Opposition support the Motion for the ratification of this Treaty. We hope that this Treaty will close for ever an old chapter in Anglo-Egyptian relations which was marked by misunderstandings on both sides from time to time and by certain apparent conflicts of purpose. We hope that that chapter is closed and that this Treaty is going to open a new chapter based upon mutual respect, sincere cooperation and abiding friendship, not merely between governments but be-


tween the British and the Egyptian peoples themselves. My old chief, Arthur Henderson, would have rejoiced to have seen this day and to have taken part in this Debate. I venture to say that he, more than any of his predecessors at the Foreign Office, succeeded in winning the confidence of the leaders of the Egyptian people and, indeed, in winning their affectionate regard, even at the moment when his negotiations failed.
He laid the foundations seven years ago of to-day's achievement. He came within an ace of negotiating a treaty, and I shall speak later of its similarity and its dissimilarity to the Treaty which has been proposed to-day. He succeeded on all points except on the one point of the Sudan, on which those negotiations broke down. I have a very vivid personal recollection of those negotiations, because I was privileged during part of them to be closeted alone with Mr. Henderson, Nahas Pasha and Makram Ebeid Pasha at hours of the morning when nearly everybody else had gone to bed, and sometimes beyond the hour of sunrise, seeking agreements and appropriate forms of words in which to clothe them. I shall never forget those mornings. As I have said, we reached agreement on all points except the Sudan, and the Treaty which the right hon. Gentleman recommends to the House this afternoon is substantially Arthur Henderson's Treaty.
I have carefully compared Mr. Henderson's draft with this Treaty. The Preamble is word for word the same. The great majority of the Articles are word for word the same. The order of the Article has been changed a little. Article 2 is the right hon. Gentleman's Article 10. That is obviously a trivial matter of arrangement. There is a little more detail in some of the annexes. There are two Articles which are different, Article 11 dealing with the Sudan is new. We could not get a Sudan Article. Article 13, dealing with Capitulations, is rather different from ours, and it is different in an interesting way. It is different in the sense that it goes much further to meet the Egyptian demands than the corresponding Article in our Treaty which the Egyptians then accepted. The right hon. Gentleman now has put forward in this Article the statement that:

His Majesty The King and Emperor recognises that the capitulatory régime now existing in Egypt is no longer in accordance with the spirit of the times and with the present state of Egypt. His Majesty the King of Egypt desires the abolition of this régime without delay.
Those words are new, but the right hon. Gentleman has left out a conditional clause which was in our Article.
under such conditions as would safeguard the legitimate interests of foreigners.
That was in our draft, but it is not in the right hon. Gentleman's draft. I am not complaining. I am just noting the difference. There is in the annexe very much firmer language of support for Egypt than anything in our draft. His Majesty's Government now, I am glad to say,
will collaborate actively with the Egyptian Government in giving effect
to the abolition of this system
by using all their influence with the Powers exercising capitulatory rights in Egypt.
That is stronger, and I welcome it. Apart from the two Articles that I have noticed, Article 13 and Article 11, there are no other changes of importance in this Treaty as compared with our draft. Of course, there are elaborations, but there are no other changes of importance. But there is a very great change in the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, on which I congratulate them, and on which I desire for a moment to dwell. They violently opposed our Egyptian policy in 1929–30. It was one of the stock topics of partisan debate. They violently opposed a necessary preliminary, the appointment of a new British High Commissioner in Cairo. The appointment of a new British High Commissioner was necessary to any real improvement in Anglo-Egyptian relations at that time. That was the subject of acrimonious debate in the summer of 1929.
The party opposite violently criticised on 23rd December, 1929, our proposals in regard to the draft treaty. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) led off for what was then the Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) weighed in with vigour. The present Foreign Secretary was much more moderate than either of his two right hon. Friends, but none the less he had many critical things to say, of some of which


I shall remind him in a moment. When in the following May it was announced that the negotiations had finally broken down, the announcement was loudly cheered from the Opposition Benches of that day. Mr. Henderson stated on 8th May of that year:
I regret to inform the House that, in spite of the most sincere and friendly efforts on both sides, the negotiations have failed, His Majesty's Government not having seen their way to meet the demands of the Egyptian Delegation in regard to the Sudan."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; col. 1120, Vol. 238.]
At the point where he stated that the negotiations had broken down the OFFICIAL REPORT inserts the words "Hear, hear!" a very unusual insertion in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and therefore all the more emphatic. Our attitude to-day is quite the reverse. We are rejoicing as much in the success of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts as his party rejoiced in the failure of ours.
Let me deal with some of the things which were said in the Debate on 23rd December, 1929. It would be extremely interesting to know why such a change has come about in the minds of hon. Members opposite on certain salient points in these negotiations. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham made a very critical reference to the proposal that Egyptian troops should return, even to the extent of one battalion, to the Sudan. I asked the Foreign Secretary this afternoon whether there was any numerical limit set as to the number of Egyptian troops who might return to the Sudan under the new regime, and he said, no, it rested with the Governor-General. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham in the Debate in 1929 said:
There is a contingent promise to allow an Egyptian battalion in certain circumstances to return into that country. I regard that as a dangerous and a retrograde step."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; col. 1957, Vol. 233.]
But in Article 11, paragraph 3, no numerical limit is set to the return of these Egyptian troops. The right hon. Gentleman was also very contemptuous of what is now Article 5, which says:
Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes not to adopt in relation to foreign countries an attitude which is inconsistent with the Alliance, nor to conclude political treaties inconsistent with the provisions of the present Treaty.

The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said in 1929:
There is something fantastic in making a clause of that kind mutual between His Majesty's Government, and in effect the British Empire, and the Government of Egypt …. It is really ridiculous to say that the foreign policy of the British Government and the British Empire is to be governed by the interests and the circumstances of the Kingdom of Egypt.
In an elegant metaphor the right hon. Gentleman said:
The elephant undertakes to protect the mouse, and thereafter the elephant's march is to be conditioned by the mouse's trot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; col. 1960, Vol. 233.]
To-day the Foreign Secretary has got beyond that kind of figure of speech, and I hope beyond that figure of thought, to the conception of a relationship of mutual respect and moral equality between Egypt and this country such as is embodied in Article 5, which is not very different in its phraseology from the Article which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham so contemptuously, if happily, described. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham was indeed critical of a large number of the Articles in our draft Treaty of 1929, particularly those relating to foreigners and the movement of troops, in regard to which there is no substantial modification in the Treaty now before us. On the movement of troops the right hon. Gentleman said:
Our troops are to leave Cairo and Alexandria. They are to be placed away in an isolated zone on the Canal …. I view with profound anxiety the consent of His Majestys Government to the removal of our troops …. The right hon. Gentleman has told me to destroy one of the few safeguards that I retained. I do not know with what authority or on what advice he has taken that step."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; col. 1962, Vol. 233.]
The development of mechanisation is, of course, a new factor, but further explanations are required why His Majesty's Government have moved so far from the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham at that time.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to mechanisation, were there any provisions for the construction of these roads and railways?

Mr. DALTON: There was not the degree of detail in the annexe which is


given in the present Treaty, but a very definite reference to mechanisation was made in another place by the Secretary of State for Air at that time—the late Lord Thomson.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not talk of mechanisation.

Mr. DALTON: No, I was not answering the right hon. Gentleman, but having regard to the passage in which he deplored the movement of troops to the Canal Zone, I am suggesting that the increased mechanisation which has taken place since then might have removed most of his objections; indeed, I was wondering whether the whole of his objections may not have been wiped away by the development of mechanisation.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I asked whether the Arthur Henderson Treaty made any provision such as is embodied in the present Treaty for the construction of military roads and railways which are provided for now. The answer was "No."

Mr. DALTON: I should have to reexamine the details of the Henderson Treaty before attempting to give a specific answer to the right hon. Gentleman, but what I am saying is that the question of mechanisation and the movement of troops from the Canal Zone back to Cairo and Alexandria did figure prominently in the debates at that time, and the late Lord Thomson in another place referred to it in detail. Therefore, these matters were prominently before the minds of those who were negotiating the other Treaty.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member challenged me rather conspicuously. I thought that he was commenting on a speech of mine, but he has introduced a speech of the late Lord Thomson in another place. I can only deal with my own speech on the Treaty.

Mr. DALTON: I can only say that my recollection is that whatever may have been put in the annexe in the Treaty negotiated by Arthur Henderson, the question of mechanisation as a factor in the movement of troops was not absent from the minds of those who had charge of the negotiations. That is the only answer I can give without having before me the exact words which would enable me to give a specific reply to the right

hon. Gentleman. I do not want to pursue the point, and I hope that I have been courteous to the right hon. Gentleman. Then there is the right hon. Member for Epping—I do not want to get these ex-Ministers on their feet one after another. He also made a vigorous challenge on the movement of troops from Cairo and Alexandria. He likened it to the departure of the Roman legions centuries ago and to the beginning of the decline of Empires and the passage of power. I pass from the right hon. Member for Epping to the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary, who made a few observations in that same Debate. I asked him to-day whether in the text of the present Treaty, there was any maximum period for the movement of troops from Cairo and Alexandria, and I understood him to say that they would move from Cairo within eight years, and that they might move even sooner. In the Debate in 1929 the right hon. Gentleman expressed the view that it would take at least 20 years. He said:
For my part, I believe, if he is to secure that result, it will take him not the three to five years mentioned by the Foreign Secretary but at least 20. That is the very minimum in which you can make a position on the Canal really habitable as a proper habitation for a large number of British troops."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; col. 2048, Vol. 233.]
I do not know what has accounted for a shrinkage of 20 years to something less than eight years. The Foreign Secretary, in fact, has expressed a view this afternoon similar to that which I expressed in the Debate in 1929 when winding up the discussion, namely, that the Canal zone, when properly equipped with barracks and amenities, is a much healthier place for the troops than Cairo. I have recently heard that it is the opinion of military officers on the spot, who are entitled to speak, that many of them would be glad if the troops were placed in the Canal zone rather than in the capital. But in 1929 the right hon. Gentleman was arguing that both from a military and health point of view the Canal zone was very unsatisfactory. In 1929 the right hon. Gentleman was greatly troubled about the protection of foreigners and demanded to know whether if anything went wrong we should have the right to reintervene. This afternoon he has made no reference to any such right; and I am glad that he


has not. He said that the question of the protection of foreigners had been settled in the Treaty in the only possible way. I agree with him that the only possible way in which that question can be settled is to put the obligation for the protection of foreigners on the Egyptian Government, just as is done in the case of any other sovereign government throughout the world. That is the only possible way, and the fears which the right hon. Gentleman expressed some years ago on this subject are now felt by the Government to be groundless. On the subject of the Sudan the right hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, viewed the return of the Egyptian battalions to the Sudan with great apprehension. He said:
I do deplore the Government's decision in regard to the return of an Egyptian battalion to the Sudan…. I believe that the return of this Egyptian battalion to the Sudan will be viewed by the Sudanese as an indication that we have weakened in our intentions towards the Sudan."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; col. 2054, Vol. 233.]
In the present Treaty the right hon. Gentleman has gone much further by way of general concessions, and also by way of detailed concession to the Egyptian claims than we were asked to go six years ago. I am making no complaint. I am hoping that the basis of Article 11 will endure. I trust that I have not taken up too much time in referring to some of the arguments to which we listened six years ago. Many of those objections, if not all, now seem to have disappeared. The critics of Arthur Henderson's policy at that time have with the passing of the years been largely converted to the wisdom of the views for which he then contended. How has that come about? Let us not peer too deeply beneath the surface of affairs. But perhaps Signor Mussolini has not been entirely without influence; perhaps Signor Mussolini has helped to persuade both the British and the Egyptian negotiators of to-day to accept conditions which six years ago they were unwilling to accept. Events in Abyssinia and events in neighbouring parts of the world have also thrown their shadow over the scene. We congratulate the Government, whatever may be the reasons, upon the fact of their conversion; and I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that Egypt and this country are, for geographical and

for other reasons, necessary to one another in these latter days, and that they are natural allies.
We trust that this Treaty will cement in a permanent fashion that natural and necessary relationship, and make it fruitful of friendship. There have been through many centuries—some would say through thousands of years—connections and influences between this country and Egypt. There are some authorities, I believe, who hold that even in the prehistoric age there were Egyptian influences playing on this country, and there are some who hold that Stonehenge, the British equivalent of the Pyramids, was constructed by persons who had learned something of craftsmanship and engineering skill, and even of the cult of sun-worship, from Ancient Egypt. Whether that be true or not—and it is an attractive hypothesis—certainly in these latter days Egypt and this country have been brought close together again. It is indeed indispensable that some step should be taken at this time in order to remove one, at least, of the sources of friction and danger to international relations and peace in the Eastern Mediterranean and the North-East of Africa. We, who six years ago laboured for a Treaty very similar to this and came very near to getting it, salute to-day the Egyptian people and their chosen leaders who have negotiated this Treaty with the right hon. Gentleman. We salute them in a spirit of friendship, and we trust that this Treaty, which they have already ratified and which the House of Commons, representing the British people, will ratify to-day, will be a means of cementing the bonds between this country of ours, with its own long history, and Egypt, whose present citizens are the heirs of one of the oldest and greatest civilisations in the history of mankind, and that armed with this Treaty our two peoples may go forward together into the future without fear.

5.19 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Far be it from me to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) into an analysis of the speeches that were delivered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite some six years ago. I was a supporter of the hon. Gentleman in the stand which he and Mr. Arthur Henderson took in those days, and it seems to me that he is amply entitled to


the enjoyment which all of us politicians have in convicting our opponents of inconsistency; but it is not my purpose to take up the time of the House this afternoon by discussing the attitude which people took towards the Treaty which Mr. Arthur Henderson sought to conclude in. 1930; I would rather take up the discussion of the Treaty which the present Government have concluded in 1936. We may regret the delay—I do regret it, and I applaud the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and Mr. Henderson for the part they played in trying to get a settlement in 1930, when they were defeated not only by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whose speeches the hon. Member has just criticised, but also by events and by personalities in the country with the Government of which they were negotiating—we regret the delay, but we may at least say that the Treaty which has now been concluded has been negotiated under favourable auspices. The first point to which I would direct attention is that it is not a Treaty which has been negotiated when the British Empire was in circumstances of weakness. We have, I suppose, never since the War had such a concentration of force in and near Egypt as we had at the time when this Treaty was negotiated. The Treaty reflects not any feeling of weakness on the part of this country, but good will towards, confidence in and respect for the Egyptian people and the statesmen who now form the Government of that country.
The outstanding feature of this Treaty, of course, is Article 1, in which it is clearly affirmed that the military occupation of Egypt is terminated and now a free alliance takes its place. Then come the provisions for safeguarding Egyptian independence and British Imperial interests in that country. I believe these provisions are ample and well designed for the purpose. It seems to me that, with the provisions which are made in the Treaty for roads, railways, barracks and aerodromes, the strategic position of the British troops in the Canal Zone is adequate to preserve the independence of Egypt and the British Imperial interests in the Canal. Moreover, it puts us in a far stronger position if we are able to make a Treaty which establishes our relations with the people of Egypt on a basis of friendship and alliance than if at some time of stress and trouble in the future the Egyptian people should not be

our friends and allies, but a hostile and discontented population. Lastly, on this point of the disposition of the troops, I agree with the remarks of the two previous speakers concerning the comfort of the troops. I have discussed this matter with officers now serving, and they told me that the Kasr el Nil Barracks in particular are deplorably bad and most uncomfortable for the troops, and that when they are moved to the Canal Zone they will be in far better and more modern and comfortable barracks.
Let me now refer to the Sudan. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that the present Treaty goes further in general concession and further in detail than the Treaty in the negotiations for which he was concerned. I have not carefully compared the two Treaties, because I was not aware that the point would be made, but from my memory of the Treaty which he was negotiating in 1930, I find it a little difficult to recall in what respects concessions so much greater have been made in this Treaty than were contemplated in the one with which he was associated. I think the provisions made in this Treaty in regard to the Sudan are defensible and justifiable. It is clear that the Egyptians have a right to share with us in the government and in the defence of that country, and I welcome the provisions, which pass a sponge over many unfortunate memories that we have of comparatively recent events and contemplate the return of Egyptian troops to that country. The Egyptians have an immense interest in the Sudan.
It is, of course, not true that the Nile can ever be diverted by the hand of man; the Nile will always flow through Egypt. Nor is it true that it will ever be economical to divert a large part of the waters of the Nile to irrigation in the Sudan in the spring and the summer when water is most needed in Egypt. For reasons connected with the levels and the nature of the soil, it is not possible to divert water in large quantities at the critical time; but the deliberate control of the waters in order to bring pressure to bear on Egypt is a different matter, especially since the construction of the Geb el Auli dam. That dam, for the construction of which the Egyptian Government were responsible, would make it possible for the waters, if they fell into hands hostile to Egypt, to be so controlled, either in flood time or in


the summer, as to cause serious injury to the interests of the people of Egypt. Therefore, I welcome the recognition which the Article relating to the Sudan affords of the vital interest of Egypt in the Sudan.
On the question of the responsibility for the safety of foreigners, the Treaty is a great step forward, and it shows our confidence in the rulers of Egypt that we have recognised their sole responsibility for the safety of foreigners and that we are able to contemplate with equanimity and confidence, as we do, the disappearance of the European Bureau. I hope indeed that it will be found possible at an early date to get rid of the Capitulations, and I followed with great interest the remarks of the Foreign Secretary on that point. Undoubtedly the existence of Capitulations is one of the reasons why, in some respects, the social services and social development of Egypt are backward. It is a mistake to say that there has been no development in recent years, for there has been a considerable development of hospital services, travelling ophthalmic hospitals, education and other social services; but still Egypt is a long way behind other countries which are certainly not superior in other aspects of civilisation. One reason for that undoubtedly is that no Egyptian Government can impose upon Egyptian subjects heavy taxation from which foreigners are exempt. It is therefore, necessary to clear away this exemption of foreigners before the. Egyptian Government can embark on large schemes of social reform. I was speaking once to a distinguished student of Eastern affairs about the contrast which the visitor to Egypt sees between the poverty of the villages and the wealth of the great cities and he said: "What Egypt wants is a Lloyd George Budget." There is a great deal of truth in that observation, but they will not get a Lloyd George Budget until the Capitulations are done away with, and foreigners are made subject to the same taxation as Egyptians. I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about the adoption of the method of negotiation. Egypt has decided to take that course and our Government has assured the Egyptian Government of our support in those negotiations, which I hope will be pressed forward to an early and successful conclusion.
In the recent negotiations the representatives of both countries have avoided the counter-dangers of haggling and niggling over very small points of difference on the one hand, and patching over real difficulties with insincere formulae on the other. I venture to offer my congratulations to those, both on the Egyptian side and on the British side, who brought those negotiations to a successful conclusion. In particular, a meed of congratulation is due to the Secretary of State—whom I often have to criticise in other respects—for the way in which he has discharged his supreme responsibility in this matter.
Egypt's claim to independence is not only natural and indefeasible. It has been explicitly and repeatedly recognised by British statesmen ever since the occupation in 1882. The problem has been to reconcile the principle of Egyptian independence with that of safeguarding the vital interests of the British Empire in the line of communications through the Suez Canal. It is because we think that this problem has found a happy and a practicable solution in the Treaty which we are discussing, and because we believe that the Treaty offers a firm basis of enduring friendship between the peoples of Egypt and Britain, that we support the Motion before the Huse.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. MUNRO: I am very glad to be able to agree once in a way with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I am sure that it is not a good thing that we should go back to the Debates of 1929 and certainly no reference can be made to my part in any Debate of that time because I was not then a Member of this House. But I welcome the opportunity of making a few comments on the great State document which we have before us. I too, believe sincerely that it is a rational step forward towards the stabilisation of the position in the Eastern Mediterranean and thus towards world peace. There is an Arabic proverb to the effect that "a wise man looks at the pros and cons" and, being one myself, I have done so in this case. One has to look at the Treaty as a whole, but before examining it I want to claim for myself that I am speaking from an experience of some 21 years in the Sudan, an experience not only of the Sudan and the Sudanese, but also of Egyptian people, Egyptian officials and Egyptian officers.


The House, I notice, always pays a certain amount of respect to views which are based on experience if they are sincerely held, however simply they may be uttered.
When we undertake to examine this Treaty we ought to examine it as a whole. We ought to take the whole picture and not try to pick out special points and exploit them as advantageous to one side or the other. That is an easy thing to do, but it is not the part of statesmanship nor, indeed, is it a sure way to approach successful negotiation. Attractive as it would be to me to delve into the past history of this great question, I realise that there is not sufficient time to do so, and as I wish to devote most of my remarks to the Sudan, I shall compress this part of my speech as much as I can. But I feel that the Foreign Secretary was right to remind us of several very important aspects of past history, because they are of essential value in obtaining a proper perspective of the Treaty which we are now discussing. The reasons why we went to Egypt are familiar to hon. Members. They will recall the declaration made at that time, that it was our duty to give advice; the realisation which shortly came upon us that it was futile to give advice unless we had the force and resolution to see it carried out, and the fact which followed that we had to undertake far more than we originally intended. In fact, the event outran the intention, or as Lord Cromer himself said:
Facts asserted themselves in defiance of diplomacy and Parliamentary convenience.
The result is well known to all of us. Under the administration of Lord Cromer there was created, as the Egyptian people realise, an atmosphere of security in which it became possible for them to lay the foundations of that independence which we are glad to see recognised to-day. That administration was a, wonderful work, and, as I say, gave the Egyptians the opportunity of attaining that which they have now achieved. Apart from recalling those points, I do not intend to go into past history, but I must refer to a few events of more recent times. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that the declaration of the British Government in 1922

was unilateral. It terminated the Protectorate and declared Egypt to be an independent sovereign Power with a monarchy; it also set out the famous four reserved points. I am one of those who realised at the time that it was necessary to reserve those points. It was an inevitable precaution. At the same time, having lived during the intervening period, as I did, in the Sudan, I can say without doubt that those four reserved points caused a constant running sore in the relations between the two countries. Obviously, it had to be so, but equally obviously it was the duty of every statesman to try to get some solution of those four points. We have heard how negotiations were started time and again, and how they broke down time and again, and generally the breaking point was the question of the Sudan and its status. On the other three points compromise might have been reached by discussion and indeed agreement was practically reached.
It was only within the last 18 months or so, in my view, that events gave an opportunity to our country and to Egypt to utilise the forces of common sense in both, in order to achieve a settlement. The whole position was tremendously changed, as we must all realise, by events in Abyssinia and in the Mediterranean and also by the changes in military technique which have already been mentioned. But more than any of those things, what made an approach to this Treaty possible was the change in Egyptian national opinion. The Egyptian people came to realise that British interests in the Suez Canal and in the general defence of Empire communications, were real interests, which would always require satisfaction, if possible by Treaty. Once that frame of mind was shown by the Egyptian people, the way was open to the alliance which we are now discussing. It was, however, necessary that we on this side should be able to deal with a delegation which was democratically representative of the Egyptian people. On other occasions the negotiations which, as I say, always broke down on the Sudan question, never appeared to me likely to be fruitful, because they were being conducted by one or another, on the side of Egypt, who had not the knowledge that the people of the country were behind them. But all the conditions to successful negotiation having been


happily fulfilled, we now have the Treaty before us for our ratification.
I do not intend to deal with the first three of the reserved points. I am satisfied that the military experts have seen to it that our communications have been safeguarded. I am satisfied that Egypt has been given full recognition of sovereignty and that there are great mutual and military advantages for both parties in the Treaty. I believe all that is greatly to the good, but the special point with which I desire to deal in this part of my remarks is that of the Sudan. I always felt that there was one fundamental issue in any discussion of the Sudan question and it was that the status of the Sudan, the Condominium as it was called, should be left unchanged. To me that seems a vital question. I believe that it is essential for the welfare of the Sudanese and I was happy when I saw the first paragraphs of the Clause in the Treaty referring to the Sudan, to find that it maintains the status quo.
That Condominium, which, as the House will probably recollect, was a very ingenious invention of the minds of that time, merged into what is called the Condominium any rights that were supposed to belong to Great Britain or Egypt, and, as has been said, ever since that time the two flags have flown in the Sudan and it has been known as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Full power has vested in an official known as the Governor-General, who was appointed by Khedivial Decree on the recommendation of our Government, and he was only dismissible with the assent of our Government. Full civil and military authority was vested in the Governor-General, and that remains so. That point, to my mind, was very satisfactorily settled in the first paragraph of the Clause. There always has been, in this country, very deep interest in the Sudan. British interest in the Sudan, as has been said, "can never be measured by commercial balance-sheets." It has always been a tremendous focus of interest. Whether it was due to the fascination of the unknown, to the history of our own explorations, or to the names and actions of Gordon, Kitchener, and many others, it has always had an undoubted fascination for the British people. Turning to the second paragraph, which states that the welfare of the Sudanese should be the primary

aim of the Administration, I believe—having left the Service many years ago, I can claim this with all modesty—that Wingate's administration of the Sudan and his conduct of the affairs of that country stand as one of the proudest phases of our history. He had with him a splendid band of loyal colleagues—Asser Pasha, Currie, Bonham Carter, Bernard—all names that will live in Sudan history, and I feel that it was a very great thing for the Sudan that such good administration was given to it. Since that time, when English administration was beginning in the Sudan, I have often seen a striking and deserved tribute paid to the British officers who, after the conquest of Omdurman by Kitchener, were seconded to the administration of the Sudan. I realise that they showed extraordinary ability to adjust themselves to circumstance and extraordinary sympathy with the people whom they were sent to govern, and there is no body of men for whom I have a greater admiration.
That tribute has been far better paid than I can do it in many works of history, by Cromer, Wingate, and others, but there is one tribute that I should like to pay to another set of people who helped us in the very early days of the Sudan, and that is the Egyptian officers who were seconded from the Egyptian Army. I think I can best bring before the House what I want to say by a very short personal illustration. When I went out as one of that band of "active, healthy young men of fair ability," as Lord Cromer called us, I was posted to a district in the distant province of Sennar, and after a year I had under me, out of seven officers, five Egyptians. I had that district for three years, and those men to whom I am referring were of far greater experience in the field than myself. They were officers of the Egyptian Army and had many more years of administrative experience, but throughout my time in that district, and indeed in other districts to which I was posted, never did I meet with anything but very loyal support and friendly and good advice, freely given. They were staunch friends and helpful colleagues, and although later on, when opinion in Egypt had become inflamed, some unfortunate events happened, I am very glad to have the opportunity to-day of paying this tribute to those Egyptian officers, and I have had it very fully endorsed by tech-


nical heads of departments in the Sudan, who were similarly assisted by senior Egyptian officers. Of course, they knew the language. Their intimate knowledge of the language was of infinite use to us when new to the country.
I consider that, once that vital matter of the Condominium was settled, the qualifying paragraphs further on are reasonable and just. I believe that it is only fair and reasonable, in view of the very close geographical and lingual connection between Egypt and the Sudan, to have inserted that Clause about the appointments, which are to be British or Egyptian if no Sudanese are qualified. I would like to say here also that in the last report on the Sudan which I examined a short time ago I was very interested to see that 68 per cent. of the staff of the Sudan are now Sudanese. I think that is a very fine tribute to all concerned. Possibly owing to my deep interest in the subject, I may have made rather a. longer speech than I usually do in this House, but I can only say, in conclusion, that I have the subject deeply at heart. I believe that this Treaty is a great step forward, and I am very glad it has been overwhelmingly approved by the Egyptian Parliament. I was very glad to note that they too did not try to stress any particular advantage or disadvantage here or there, but were agreed that it was a Treaty based on mutual good will, with great advantages to both parties. I believe that it is a good work well done, and I congratulate the two Governments and support the Treaty.

5.53 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: Like the last speaker, I am in very full agreement, with the terms of the Treaty. It is not that I would have, if I myself were asked to suggest a settlement, agreed to or proposed all the details that have been put into the Treaty, but on the general, broad principles I am, like all previous speakers, in very full agreement. For instance, I would not have laid so much emphasis as apparently has been laid on the defence of the Canal by land forces. It is perfectly true that a certain number of land forces would be required to protect the Canal, but the Canal is for the passage of vessels through it, and, as far as Egypt and ourselves are concerned, the important thing is that sea forces should be available to make certain that

that passage did take place, and sea forces, after all, will act, not at the Canal itself, but at long distances from it, as, for instance, at Malta or even Gibraltar and at Aden on the other side. The Canal is only a link in a long chain which leads out into the Atlantic on the one side and into the Pacific on the other, and if any one of the links is interrupted, then it is quite possible that the Canal itself will be rendered useless for its main purpose of allowing shipping freely to pass through it. Therefore, I would have been glad to have seen greater emphasis laid on the necessity for sea forces defending the Canal.
The other main matter in which I am personally interested is that to which the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) also referred, and that is the Sudan. When I think of the Sudan, I am compelled to think of Egypt in its relation to it. Egypt is a very remarkable country, not only from the fact that throughout the ages it has had a great and interesting history, but it is almost unique in, that its very existence depends on the water flowing through it, which comes from distances measured by thousands of miles away from the country itself. If, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has suggested, the waters were diverted, then Egypt would not even be able to maintain a nomad population. It would revert to the condition of pure desert that exists for 200 miles on one side and 2,000 miles on the other. Its existence then as a country depends on this water passing through.
I think that what the right hon. Baronet said requires a little further explanation than he gave us. He only referred to the matter, of course, in a very few words, and it is difficult in a few words to convey the exact impression of what happens, but really Egypt is a country of two crops. There is a food crop, and there is what I normally call a financial crop, namely, cotton. The right hon. Baronet was right in saying that nothing that man can ever do can ever affect the food crop of Egypt. For ever must the waters that fall mainly in Abyssinia pour down through the Sudan and into Egypt; and it is inconceivable that man could do anything to divert those waters. As a consequence, Egypt is assured for ever of her food crops.
That is not at all the position with regard to the financial crops, because they are fertilised by water which comes from the White Nile, which passes up through Khartoum into the Sudd region and through it again into the equatorial lakes of Africa. It is quite conceivable that things might be done there, in the Sudd region and beyond it, which would, if not actually prevent all the water coming down at the right season, very greatly diminish the supply which is at present available for the financial crops, which are irrigated from, say, March to June or July. As a consequence Egypt has a very vital interest in the Sudan, far more vital than she has, for instance, in what happens in Abyssinia, because the waters coming off the Abyssinian plateau must for ever pass down. Man cannot divert them. It is important to Egypt that she should have command in the Sudan and such authority there that she should be absolutely assured that the vital supply of water for her financial crops are always available to her, and that nothing should be done in that region without her consent. Treaty after treaty has been made to help to regulate the waters of the Sudan and, indeed, of the countries beyond it which, fortunately for Egypt, are British Colonial possessions, such as Uganda, Kenya and even Tanganyika. The waters of Lake Victoria Nyanza come pouring down the Nile and through the Sudan to Egypt, and these are the waters which really fertilise the financial crops.
A new situation has arisen in Abyssinia, and it should be noted that a certain amount of these southern financial crop waters rise in Abyssinia. They do not come down the Blue Nile but come into the Sudan and join the White Nile at Malakal. As a consequence of these waters rising in Abyssinia, they could conveniently be used in Abyssinia for irrigation purposes and thus diminish the supply. I understand from Italians that the really valuable part of Abyssinia is its south-west part which borders on the Sobat and the upper regions of the Sudan, where there are vast plains which could be developed, but fortunately they require, I understand, very little irrigation water. As a consequence, there will be no fear of an abstraction of waters from the upper

Sobat waters from the financial waters which pass down into Egypt. That leaves the financial crops, as far as Egypt is concerned, and as far as anything that may arise in Abyssinia is concerned, in a safe position. The little abstraction that may be made will be negligible and no dispute could conceivably arise about it. On the Blue Nile there is a possibility of that happening in regard to Lake Tsana, which is the source of the Blue Nile and supplies the food crop waters. If a dam were built across Lake Tsana the water could be conserved and stored in the dam and let out for the benefit of the financial crops in either Egypt or the Sudan.
In my view, Egypt need not care whether she ever builds a dam across Lake Tsana or not; she can get all the water she requires in the Sudd region, which is more under her command now than it was before. The Sudan is not in quite the same position. As far as the financial crops in the Gazirah are concerned, she depends on the Blue Nile, that is, on the Abyssinian River for her financial crops. The Sudan has to-day at Sennar a great darn which stores water for her and which gives her ample water to fertilise a huge area of some 600,000 acres. She may want to increase that, and naturally will if and when she can. Her eyes, therefore, must turn further up the same river. Naturally, she would like to have Lake Tsana, but even the Sudan does not require to go to Lake Tsana. She could build inside her own territory another dam of about equal capacity to that of the dam at Sennar, and thus give her a vast addition of land. The necessity for getting Lake Tsana as a storage reservoir, therefore, is non-existent so far as Egypt is concerned; and, as far as the Sudan is concerned, it could be avoided by making a reservoir which would satisfy her requirements for many years to come.
As a consequence, I would, if I were asked by either Egypt or the Sudan, advise that they should not dream of building a dam across Lake Tsana. I know that the Italians would like a dam to be built because they have in mind the development of hydro-electric power. If a dam were built, however, the power available would be so great that I cannot conceive where it could be sold. I can imagine that near the mouth of Lake Tsana, where there is a considerable fall,


a small hydro-electric installation might well be put up, but that those now in possession of the Lake should build a dam for hydro-electric power, and at the same time for the purpose of giving water to Egypt or the Sudan, seems to me outside the bounds of possibility or probability. If it were asked, as I have heard it asked in the House, what was likely to happen in regard to the dam, I should say that nothing will happen, and that it is advisable that nothing should happen. If water which is essential to the life of one country is stored in another country, the latter country could, in the event of dispute, war or difficulty, so arrange it that the water would be sent down at the wrong time of the year and do harm and possibly great damage. It would, therefore, be very advisable not to encourage either Egypt or the Sudan to build this dam at Lake Tsana unless in some way they can get political control of it. How that could be done is another matter, but it is possible that in the years to come some such change will take place, and it will be possible for either Egypt or the Sudan to have that Lake by some quid pro quo with Italy for the benefit of their irrigation. I have dealt with this matter at some length to correct what I felt was not quite the right presentation of the case by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness when he said that nothing could he done in the Sudan that would be detrimental to either Egypt or the Sudan.
As regards the Treaty as a whole, the Secretary of State is to be congratulated or having succeeded in getting settled a matter that was causing great anxiety to many people. The Egyptians are also to be congratulated for their share. Nahas Pasha has, in particular, exhibited undoubted statesmanship in his handling of the matter and of the amicable and not too protracted proceedings which eventuated in the Treaty. We have too many examples of treaties which are signed and are torn up or neglected soon afterwards. The important matter is that the spirit of the people concerned, and not only that of the people at the top who have signed the Treaty, should be con amore with the terms of the Treaty itself. I heard the Secretary of State say that as far as he and the Government were concerned they wished to see this Treaty carried out in the letter and in the spirit. From the little knowledge

I have of Egyptians I think I can say that Nahas Pasha not only represents in the normal manner the leadership of a great party but the leadership of a party which is practically synonymous with everybody in the country to-day. I know that all the people who are behind him in this Treaty, that is, the people of Egypt, are themselves happy and glad that this arrangement should have been come to.
I have regretted many times to hear that the particular party which Nahas Pasha represent, and of which a famous and great statesman, Zagloul Pasha, was head, namely, the Wafd party, was somehow or other inimical to Great Britain. They desired internal freedom, and full external freedom, too, but none of them were inimicable at any stage to Great Britain. In fact, they looked upon Great Britain with very friendly eyes. It is true that in all parties, just as in ours in this country, there are a few extremists who are not in accord with the body of their own party, and I have no doubt that there have been a few extremists in the Wafd party in the same position. I think that I can with justification say that I believe the Egyptian public are wholly and heartily behind this Treaty and are glad to be associated with Great Britain in the terms which the Treaty so succinctly lays down.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I do not in these days always find myself in full agreement with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I am therefore glad to pay a tribute to him to-day for the way in which he has handled this matter. We have seen his great gifts at their very best on this occasion. As soon as he realised that an opportunity had occurred, he brushed aside all minor considerations, concentrating on the point that good will was worth a good many apparent minor sacrifices. He has known when to take occasion by the hand, and I think he has done a very good day's work for his country in bringing this Treaty to success. We are also, as has already been said, grateful to Signor Mussolini, but, apart from that, one must also pay a tribute to Nahas Pasha for the statesmanship which the Egyptians too, have so clearly shown on their side. It is a happy augury for the working together of the statesmen on both sides in the carrying out of this Treaty in the future.
In supporting this Motion I have a few comments to make on various points. With regard to Article 2, dealing with the appointment of ambassadors, I do hope the Secretary of State will keep carefully in mind the type of man who should be appointed to a position of this kind in future. I do not criticise in any way the many admirable public servants who have been High Commissioners in Egypt in the past, but I think it would be a mistake to look upon this position as a mere career appointment from the Foreign Office, to take people from one part of the world to another. It requires very special political gifts, gifts which can only be obtained by political experience, very often in this House, and it is most difficult for a man, however able, who is taken from the other side of the world to be able in a moment to size up all the immense difficulties there, such as do not confront those in many of the ordinary Foreign Office appointments. The type of man I have in mind—he is past that service now—is Lord Willingdon, and I hope the Foreign Office, when a vacancy occurs, will bear in mind the appointment of somebody of the stamp of those who are now sent to take high office in India as Governors of the different Provinces there.
I should also like to make a comment on Article 13, dealing with the Capitulations. I am sure the Government appreciate that they will encounter a great deal of opposition when the question of abolishing the Capitulations comes up, opposition from the rich men of all countries, from rich British citizens and rich Egyptians and others. It will be a perfectly natural and understandable opposition. They have valuable vested interests at present, and they will not encourage too readily changes which will involve, and rightly so, very much heavier taxation upon themselves. I understand that at present the taxation on a rich man in Egypt has not been much more than some 10d. in the pound and that owing to this circumstance the Egyptian Government has been prevented from putting on taxes such as ought to be imposed on its own subjects and has not had money available for carrying out social reforms and other matters which it would gladly have wished to undertake. I feel sure the Government can be trusted to use all their influence when

the conference on the abolition of the Capitulation takes place to see that the Egyptian Government is assisted to get rid of them at the earliest possible moment; but it must be borne in mind that there will be opposition, and that it will came from vested interests and individuals, though it ought not to be allowed to stand in the way.
Article 8, which deals with the Suez Canal, refers to it as an essential means of communication. It may be essential, but I begin to wonder whether, under some other examples of the foreign policy of the Government, it will be an available means of communication. That, however, is not a point which one can go into to-day. One has to bear in mind that the Canal is an essential means of communication not for the British Empire only. It is all very well for us, and it appears to us, but it is not quite the same with many foreign nations. It is just as important to, let us say, France, Holland, Portugal and Italy, all of whose vessels must pass through the Canal to get to their overseas dependencies, and for that reason it might have been a good thing, and I hope that some day it will be the case, that we should receive a mandate from the League of Nations to act as the protectors of the Canal. It may be said that that would not, in practice, make very much difference, and that is perfectly true, but theoretically, and from the broad, world point of view, there is a great deal to be said for putting it on a proper basis. It ought not to be on a purely national basis, in the interests of the British Empire alone. It is a world matter in which we have, no doubt, the major interest, but I cannot help thinking we could have carried out our duties just as effectively if we had been acting as trustees in the manner indicated.
I was interested, while the Secretary of State was dealing with the history of our occupation of Egypt, by his reference to the events after the revolt of Arabi Pasha when the occupation first took place. We went in during a civil war. I could not help thinking, in passing, how much things have altered from those times. There was no question then of a Non-Intervention Committee, no question of not taking sides or keeping out at all costs. We went right in and have been there ever since. I am


not drawing any deductions from that, but merely saying that it is an interesting historical parallel to compare the two things. I heartily welcome this agreement. I think it is a great act of statesmanship on both sides, and I hope that our two countries can go forward to ever greater success, in the shadow of the Pyramids, in the great country of Isis and Osiris.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: A great deal of what I had intended to say has already been said, and I shall detain the House for only a few minutes, but having spent some 18 years in Egypt in Government service I should like to say a little about this great Treaty, and more particularly about the background against which it is made. I think everyone who knows anything about Egypt must be glad that at last the relations between the two countries are being put upon a regular footing, and knowing a good deal about the difficulties which must have confronted them, I should like to offer my congratulations to the negotiators on what we hope will be a satisfactory and lasting settlement of a very thorny question. I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State upon the very clear and lucid explanation of the Treaty which he gave us to-day. Ever since the military occupation in 1882 attained its immediate objectives the position of the civil occupation in Egypt has been undefined and anomalous. I do not propose to recall what Mr. Gladstone and other statesmen said in 1882 about the duration and the character of the occupation. A great deal was said, and a great deal of it was conflicting, but one thing which all were agreed about, I think, was that it was only to be temporary. The word "temporary," however, like similar words relating to time which are sometimes used even now by His Majesty's Ministers in this House, was not defined, and in its application to Egypt that word eventually led to the famous utterance by an Egyptian Prime Minister:
In Egypt it is only the temporary which endures.
In point of fact, temporary has in this case meant 54 years. But although the position of the occupation was undefined there is not the slightest doubt that it has been completely justified. This Treaty is testimony to that, and I know

that there are a great many Egyptians who hated the occupation who could be found to-day to admit that it has been of incalculable benefit to their country.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the chaos and misery which existed in the country when we went there in 1882. Thanks to wise British administration and wise guidance, begun under Lord Cromer in that year, Egypt has been regenerated and modern Egypt has been made. I am not going to take up time by going through all that has been done, but a very great deal has been done, so that in the course of the years up to 1914 Egypt was given a state of prosperity which she had not known for centuries. But while that work of regeneration was going on the fact that we showed no signs of relaxing our hold upon Egypt, that all the more important Government posts were held by British officials, and that Egypt had very little to say in her own affairs, naturally excited a certain amount of discontent among the more progressive of the rising generation. They knew nothing of the abuses and the miserable conditions of the past, and many of them thought they were perfectly capable of governing themselves. That was the situation in 1914, when the War broke out. It was a very difficult situation, because of this discontent, and also because of the Turkish connection, to which the Foreign Secretary referred. That was got over by the declaration of a Protectorate, but there, again, it was a unilateral declaration, Egypt having practically no voice in the matter at all, and it was acquiesced in to a great extent because, first of all, the Egyptians were somewhat afraid of an invasion of their territory from the East. The Turks were known to be advancing towards the Canal. It was due also to the fact that there was a big influx of troops into Egypt, and to the tremendous demand for cotton and the other things which the soil produces, which enabled the Egyptians to sell all they had got to sell at very advantageous prices. It was then hoped that the Protectorate might possibly prove a basis for a permanent settlement, but that hope was not to be realised because, although during the War the country was quiet and many Egyptians performed valuable services to the Allied cause, nationalist sentiment was steadily growing all the time.
As soon as the Armistice had been signed, there was a widespread and insistent demand for the abolition of the Protectorate and for complete independence. The strength of that demand was clearly seen by Sir Reginald Wingate, who was High Commissioner, and to whom a very proper tribute had been paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) who knew him very well as Governor-General of the Sudan. I have always felt that his services in Egypt, to which country he came from the Sudan, have never been properly recognised. There is no doubt that he did very valuable work there at a very difficult time. He saw the strength of that demand for independence, and those who were in touch with the situation feel no doubt at all that if his advice at that time to the British Government had been taken, and if the leaders of Egyptian opinion had been allowed to come to London and state their case, it would have been possible, by making concessions, small in comparison to those which were eventually wrung from us, to have settled the Egyptian question for a generation.
The British Government, admittedly busy over the preparations for the Treaty of Versailles and concerned with other very urgent and important business, did not see fit to take the advice of the man on the spot. Those representatives of Egyptian opinion were asked to delay, but, in the state of temper of the country, delay was impossible. As the Foreign Secretary has stated, the most serious disorders broke out everywhere. I shall not take up time by tracing the sequence of events from 1919 to 1922, but I would like to emphasise that the failure of all the efforts which were made during that time, to secure settlement, was due, I think, in large measure to the fact that our Government at home were always too late with their proposals. By the time the proposals had got out to Egypt and had been submitted to the people, Egyptian opinion had gone ahead of them and the proposals were entirely unacceptable.
That resulted, of course, in a deadlock. Finally, there was the unilateral Declaration of 1922, of which we have heard a very great deal. While that Declaration

lulled public opinion in Egypt for a time, it really increased the anomalies of the situation, because Egypt was declared by it to be an independent sovereign State. Those adjectives obviously carried very little conviction to the minds of the Egyptians, who saw in their own country and against their will, an army of occupation. On the other hand, we all recognise the immense importance of having the Canal protected, and that it was essential that British troops should be in Egypt as long as the Egyptians were not in a position to protect the Canal themselves. There you had a conflict of views which made an almost insoluble problem. Attempts were made over and over again to settle that problem, but they broke down for one reason or another.
Owing to a change of outlook—the reasons for it have already been suggested—on the part of the Egyptian people, a freely negotiated agreement has now been reached, and the relations of the two countries have, for the first time and by mutual consent, been defined. Under the Treaty, the Egyptians will undertake very greatly increased responsibilities, and I believe that the view that they have the ability as well as the will to do so cannot reasonably be challenged. When, in accordance with the arrangements then made, the great majority of British officials left the Egyptian Service soon after the Declaration of 1922, and many of the Departments of State were left in the control of Egyptians, some of us felt that there might be a lessening of efficiency and a lowering of the standard which we tried to reach. Those fears have proved, to a very great extent—indeed, almost completely—groundless.
It has to be remembered that, during the time that the Egyptians have been in sole charge of their own affairs in those matters, they have had very difficult conditions to deal with, owing to the abnormal economic conditions. That they have succeeded seems a great tribute to their capacity to look after their own affairs, and to be a very good augury for the future. It is a tribute also to the efficiency of those steps which, from the very first, it was our avowed purpose should be taken in order to fit the Egyptians to govern themselves. It is a tribute also to the soundness of


the administrative machine which, under British guidance, was built up during those 54 years. I feel confident that the Egyptians, freed from a position which was becoming increasingly galling, and being intensely anxious to justify the new status of their country in the eyes of the world, will rise to the height of their new responsibility. I feel confident, too, that, having freely acknowledged that we, as well as they, have vital interests in their country, they will cooperate with us in the manner provided in the Treaty, and with a wholehearted loyalty which we have not been able hitherto to expect from them. I, therefore, have very much pleasure in supporting the Motion that the Treaty be ratified.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. HOPKIN: I am unable to claim the length of service which the hon. Member has been able to claim in regard to Egypt, but I lived in that country for four years and moved among the people, having to earn my living in the town of Cairo. We are now closing a chapter in the book of history concerning the relationship between Egypt and this country. In doing so, we can look back over the period of this chapter with a certain amount of pride, because the work which Britishers have done in Egypt during the last 50 years is there for anyone to see. At the same time, we cannot hide the fact that we have made blunders as well. One of the greatest blunders, and indeed now that we know more, one of the greatest injustices, that we did concerning Egypt, was that connected with the Khedive Abbas Hilmi, in 1914.
Now we have signed this Treaty, because we have always said that our stay in Egypt was temporary. The Egyptians, too, see the writing on the wall in the fate of Abyssinia, and they are wise in looking round for some strong ally who can defend their country from any other country which desires to invade it. I hope most sincerely that we are soon coming to a fixed agreement. with Italy, but, in the meantime, we cannot shut our eyes to everything that is said in the Italian Press concerning Italian hopes and aspirations, not only in the Mediterranean but as regards Egypt herself. It has been well said, and I respectfully agree with it, that when we discussed the

Treaty in this House in 1929, both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the present Foreign Secretary attacked it. In passing, we should remember the great work done by Mr. Arthur Henderson as regards that Treaty. It is certainly because of the foundations which he laid then that we are able to discuss to-night with so much unanimity the Treaty which we have before us.
The centre of the whole Treaty is contained in Article 1:
The military occupation of Egypt by the Forces of His Majesty The King and Emperor is terminated.
Under that Article, Egypt is free, independent and sovereign. In 1922, independence, with the four reserve points, was granted. Whatever we may think of the fact that Egypt is an independent State, we may be very certain that the Egyptians will take every advantage and full advantage, as they have every right to do in the future, to ensure that Egypt is in every way an independent State. Next in importance is Article 8, which deals with the Suez Canal. We are going to remain there for 20 years at least. Parts of the Annexe to Article 8 deal with the removal of troops from Cairo and Egypt to the Canal. The Foreign Secretary must have had many qualms of conscience when he signed this Treaty, particularly with reference to the Canal, because he said in 1929:
There is nothing I should like less than to be stationed near the Canal for any long period of time.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman is putting 10,000 troops there and 400 airmen.

Mr. EDEN: I hope the hon. Member appreciates that the location proposed for the troops at that time was quite different from that which is now proposed.

Mr. HOPKIN: I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman when he says that. He also said further on:
I dislike the Canal not only for military reasons but for health reasons also."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; cols. 2048–9, Vol. 233.]
Under the Henderson Treaty, there was first of all a time-limit for the troops to be removed from Cairo to the Canal. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is making the point that under the Henderson Treaty it was thought that the troops would go to Ismailia and to Moascar. Under this Treaty they are


going to Geneifa. If that is his point, there is absolutely nothing in it. The two towns of Ismailia, and Moascar are on the side of the Canal and Ismailia is a very fair-sized town. Ismailia is a healthy town while Geneifa is just a little village, and is, if I remember rightly, on the edge of the Bitter Lake. There is no point at all in the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no difference between those two places. If the one is unhealthy, so is the other. I cannot understand what change of heart has come over the right hon. Gentleman that in 1929 he should say that this was the last place in the world to which he would like to go, and yet now he is condemning 10,000 soldiers and 400 airmen to live in the place which in 1929 he condemned. The further point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) as to how long it is going to take the Egyptians to build barracks, to provide playing fields and to put in a water supply. The Foreign Secretary in 1929 said this:
It will not take three to five years, but at least 20. That is the very minimum in which you can make a position on the Canal really habitable.
Perhaps it is a little unfair of me to bring these birds home to roost to the right hon. Gentleman, who was then speaking, of course, as a very humble back bencher. The fact is that there is no hardship at all in taking the Army on to the Canal. The Milner Commission said this:
So long as we maintain our occupation by troops in Cairo, so long will it be impossible to make any advance in giving Egypt the independence she desires.
I think that to leave troops on any consideration at all in Cairo or Alexandria would be to defeat the whole purpose of this Treaty. At the same time, do not let us blind ourselves to the fact that in doing this we are taking a certain amount of risk.
I should like to mention to the Foreign Secretary one small point in regard to Article 8. Why has he allowed himself to be tied down to a width of 20-feet for the roads that are to be built? That seems to me, if I may say so, to be very short-sighted. A 20-foot modern road is a road which will be of very little service indeed from the military point of view. I should have thought that the roads

which are set out from east to west and from north to south—most important roads for the Egyptians themselves—could have been quite as easily made 30 feet wide as 20 feet wide, and they would have been much more useful to the Egyptians and to ourselves. Article 12 is the Article dealing with the safety of foreigners, and there, be it noted, the Egyptian Government becomes solely responsible. I take it that British troops will not be allowed to go to Cairo or to Alexandria in any circumstances whatsoever in order to look after the rights and safety of foreigners. I should like to know whether that assumption which I make is correct. The right hon. Gentleman himself put this question when he was sitting on a back bench. He asked whether British troops would be allowed to go to Cairo or Alexandria or Zagazig or Tanta in any circumstances whatsoever, and I would remind him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said in 1929:
The right hon. Gentleman"—
meaning Mr. Arthur Henderson—
and his colleagues must remember that all the protection we shall have in future must be embodied in this document.
Let us face the position. We are taking a certain amount of risk. A very important safeguard for the safety of foreigners—I know it because I was in Cairo when the riots were on in 1920, and many of us then had experiences which we shall not forget—are being taken away. For my own part, I believe we are justified in taking this risk, but at the same time let us face quite clearly the fact that we are taking a risk. Closely connected with Article 12 is Article 13 on the Capitulations. In my respectful submission, the result is quite unsatisfactory, but at the same time I must be equally frank with the House and say that I cannot see any better way out. I think it would be wrong for it to go out from this House that there is any great hope for the Egyptians to have complete satisfaction with regard to this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe for one moment that the Italians, for example, or, still more, the Greeks, will give up one single bit of their rights in Egypt to-day? They will not, and I think we are holding out a sham hope to the Egyptians if we say to them that they can have any hope that the position


under the Capitulations will be improved. It seems to me to be the most elementary justice that the Egyptians should not bear the burden alone. We are practically putting upon the Egyptians this enormous expense of making new roads, of improving the railways, of adding to their Army, and yet they themselves will not have the right or the power to put a part of that expense upon the non-Egyptian population.
There are two important points which are not contained in the Treaty itself, but, which only form part of letters. One is in regard to the Egyptian Army, and the other in regard to the police. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the attitude which was taken up in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping when he thought that a separate and independent Egyptian army was pregnant with danger. He feared such an army; he thought that a situation of marked tension would arise and speedily develop. The exact words he used were these:
We were manufacturing explosive in a retort.
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered these matters, and, further, what has he to say to the point which was made then about conscription for the Egyptian army? Is it a right thing, or ought it to be limited so as to meet the views which the right hon. Gentleman then put forward? I am not going to deal with the Article relating to the Sudan Government, because that has been dealt with extensively by the hon. Member for Llandaff (Mr. Munro); but I would point out one thing which has surprised me very much, seeing that the Foreign Secretary is now the person who is in charge of this Treaty. His views only a few years ago were these:
Frankly and emphatically, I do deplore the Government's decision in regard to the return of an Egyptian battalion to the Sudan … The Sudanese detest Egyptian government, and they have every reason for doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd December, 1929; col. 2054, Vol. 233.]
May I ask the Foreign Secretary one question with regard to the Egyptian currency? Will he tell the House what is the future of the Egyptian currency? Is it to go on as it is now, linked to the English pound, or will it be allowed to find its own value level in time? This is a very important matter for a large number of merchants, particularly mer-

chants who do business between Lancashire and Alexandria.
Before we close this chapter, I think we ought to remember two men who worked a great deal for Egypt, and who suffered greatly for so working. I refer to Zaghlul Pasha and the Khedive Abbas Hilmi. Abbas Hilmi himself was for 18 years Sovereign of Egypt, and during that time he preserved the Egyptian independence, and so rendered signal service to his country. He encouraged his people to prepare for self-government. His fault was that he lived 30 years before his time. And he retained the Egyptian independence in the face of two of the greatest Englishmen who have ever been sent to Egypt. In these days, when so many are being deprived of their liberty and freedom, this nation should be proud that it is restoring full liberty to an ancient and historic people. It is an ideal which we have set up for ourselves, and it seems to me that we are true to our best ideals when we afford liberty to other nations. This is a great experiment, but let us know that it is an experiment—an experiment which, I am convinced, will be a successful one. We made a great plunge and a great experiment in South Africa, and it has been a success. It seems to me that this Treaty provides a very great opportunity for both nations to work together for their mutual advantage.

6.58 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I came here to-day, Mr. Speaker, specially with the view of catching your eye in order that I might be able to join in the congratulations which I knew would be given to my right hon. Friend on the conclusion of this Treaty, and to express my appreciation of the work that he has done in connection with it. But I confess that I am a little afraid to join in those congratulations when I find that all round the House the chorus goes on from one to the next and there is not a doubtful or scornful voice. I begin to wonder whether we are having a debate with the Whips off, and shall find only on the back benches of those supporting the Government that criticism of the proposals which would usually come from the Opposition; or perhaps we shall have a repetition of what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) when he said that it would not be desirable that we should allow


Egypt to think that she would get her own way entirely in regard to Capitulations. I wish very heartily to congratulate my right hon. Friend, and also Sir Miles Lampson, on the Treaty which has been achieved. I know what a great amount of work has been put into the negotiations, and I think it was in every way desirable that we should try to arrive at a solution of the very difficult situation which for some 14 years has existed in Egypt.
There was one remark which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in his speech which, I thought, was worthy of very particular attention. He said that these conditions could not continue. That really has been the point that many people have been worried over for a good many years past. How were we to resolve the difficulties raised by the reservation of four essential points? The decision on these reserved points in 1922, although necessary at the time, created an almost impossible position for this country and for Egypt as the basis of any permanent settlement. I am glad that a Treaty has been achieved, and I do not criticise the decision of the Government, in view of the military advice which they have had, to remove the troops from Cairo. There is, however, a little misunderstanding in this connection. It has sometimes been said that it has been we alone who have objected to the troops being removed from Cairo. That is not true. It is not the British alone who have been involved in keeping the troops in Cairo; there were other interests as well. The authorities are now satisfied, I understand, that the troops can be safely removed to the Canal zone. The conditions for the removal of the troops to-day are essentially different from those of six years ago at the time of the Henderson negotiations, not only because the troops are going to a different part of the country where cultivation is much better and surroundings for the troops themselves are very different, but because the situation has altered in the last six years. For example, the developments in the air alone must have changed the whole outlook of the military situation.
There is one matter which I feel, however, has not been sufficiently dealt with. This Treaty is vague, and necessarily so at present, on what is to happen in con-

nection with the safeguarding of European interests in Egypt, other than purely military interests. The Treaty deals most fully and satisfactorily with the future military and naval situation and with the future of the Suez Canal. If I have any criticism in that connection it might be that we are not looking far enough ahead. Perhaps people 20 or 30 years hence may say, how curious it is that we took such a great interest in the Canal, could we not see how much more the development of the air was going to matter? But, be this as it may, there is nothing directly stated as to the security of British and foreign interests other than those I have mentioned. Particularly I have in view the large foreign trading interests. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said that any removal of the Capitulations would be opposed by the vested interests of the rich people, so perhaps I had better start by saying that I have no business interests in Egypt and never have had any. We all want to see the Capitulations removed, but what a great many people in Egypt will want to know is what is to take their place—what security is there to be after the Capitulations go. It is on that point that foreigners, and some Egyptians also, will be vitally interested. This matter is to be the subject of subsequent negotiations.
I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), but it is true that there is one sentence in the Henderson treaty negotiations, a vital sentence, which does not exist in this Treaty, and that is where it was said that the proposal to consider the removal of the Capitulations would be under conditions which would safeguard the legitimate interests of foreigners. I do not suggest that these interests will not be considered; they must be, but it is of the greatest importance when we get to the negotiations which must follow this Treaty that we should remember it is not only the rich people who are concerned, but also a great many small people in Egypt; artisans, small traders, even cooks, and servants of all races who will possibly be more vitally concerned in this matter than the rich merchants of whom the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton spoke.


In any question that may arise regarding the future of foreign interests the rich can probably look after themselves, they can probably bring sufficient influence on future Governments to enable them to make their voices heard; it is the little people who will be most affected.
Do not let us forget what has happened in Turkey since the Capitulations were removed there. There has been all sorts of legislation gradually removing Europeans and European trade from that country. There has been legislation against the employment of foreigners, legislation which requires that everybody employed in a foreign concern shall be of Turkish nationality. This may well be copied. Even in the speech from the Throne in Egypt introducing this Treaty it is already proposed that at least 50 per cent. of the employés of every foreign firm shall be Egyptians. It sounds reasonable but in practice I fear it is not so. It is in view of that fact, and that you may have legislation such as there has been in Turkey operating against a professional man following his profession, or making it impossible for an Armenian shoemaker to secure work there, that I suggest it will be necessary for the Government to take the greatest possible care in the further negotiations regarding the removal of the Capitulations.
Another example of that difficulty arises in the scheme for doing away with the Consular courts. I am not opposed to these things, they may have to come, but it is necessary to put before the Government how anxious people are on these points. The jurisdiction of these courts is to be put on to the Mixed courts. It seems all right up to a point, but we must face the fact that, if this is carried out, it will be necessary greatly to strengthen the Mixed courts if it is to succeed. In matters of personal status it really seems to me difficult to make a case for doing away with the Consular courts. The main difficulty, however, will be the possibility of either fiscal or discriminatory legislation against foreigners. There is a complete misconception about the position of taxation in Egypt. It has been said, even in this House to-day, that the Egyptian Government would like the opportunity of putting taxation on foreigners. But taxation in Egypt is

mostly indirect, and foreigners pay their full share of that taxation. Direct taxation is mainly on the buildings and land, and these the foreigner pays in the same way as the Egyptian, although much land may not be owned by foreign nationals. My main object in emphasising these points is this: I do not want to oppose this Treaty in any way, but I want the Government to realise the strong feeling that exists not only among the British community and among so-called rich people, but among rich and poor alike in all communities, as to the next step in the negotiations, that regarding the Capitulations. I do not know whether it would be possible to prevent discriminatory legislation by giving the Mixed courts power to declare that a, law was unconstitutional. It is not the text of a law but its application that matters.
A great deal depends on the wording of the Agreement when you come to it. In this Treaty, for example, there are a good many words which will require to be explained. Take those on page 12, in the Annexe to Article 13, which institutes a transitional regime "for a reasonable and not unduly prolonged period." That may mean almost anything. There is also paragraph 7:
Consideration will be given to the desirability of excepting from the transfer of jurisdiction, at any rate in the first place, matters relating to 'statut personnel' affecting nationals of those Capitulatory Powers who wish that the Consular authorities should continue to exercise such jurisdiction.
Those words as to the extent of consideration are very indefinite. I draw attention to them only with the object of asking my right hon. Friend to remember the feelings and anxieties of a large number of people in Egypt who want to be assured that in the new arrangements there will be no fear of their livelihood being taken from them, no fear of their not getting honest and unpurchased justice, and who, if these fears are removed, will be as whole-heartedly in favour of this Treaty as any Member of this House. I congratulate the Government on making this great advance. I believe there is a spirit of good will in Egypt which will grow under a Treaty of this kind. I want to see it grow, but I also think it is essential that we should secure the position of those, British and foreign, who have done so much to build up the prosperity of Egypt in the past.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. PILKINGTON: I will not follow the last speaker in the very interesting details that he has given us, but I want to refer to one thing that was said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) when he mentioned the condition of the Kasr-el-Nil barracks in Cairo. I have stayed some time in those barracks and I can assure him that they have been condemned every year since the time of Lord Kitchener as being unfit to live in. Nor are the amenities of the barracks improved by the ease with which, on occasion, one can extract snakes from the walls. Supporters of the Government have been taunted with having been opposed to the 1930 Treaty, but, as was pointed out by the Foreign Secretary and others, there are many conditions which have completely changed the circumstances from that time. There is the question of mechanisation, which my right hon. Friend pointed out and which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) attempted to dodge, though I do not think he succeeded; and there is the question of the improved roads and railways, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) pointed out, and also there is the fact that in 1930 Egypt was not united behind the delegation, as it is in 1936. If we can divide the record of the Government into three broad spheres, home, foreign and Imperial, I think there can be no dispute in any corner of the House that, at any rate, in two of those spheres their record has been most admirable, and perhaps most admirable of all in the sphere of Imperial relations.
This Treaty bring to an end a period of 50 years which began when Lord Cromer rescued Egypt from economic and administrative bankruptcy, and which went on to the great War and then to a dawning prosperity and to a dawning national consciousness. The criticism has been offered that in this Treaty we are running away from our responsibilities of Empire. That sort of criticism is behind the times. The shock and recoil of the great War, so disastrous in Europe, in the Middle East began the reawakening of a gifted race which had lain dormant under the heel of the Ottomans for many centuries. During the last 20 years the Arab race has been reawakening to new life. It has been fortunate

in its leaders King Fuad, King Feisal and King Ibn Saud. The British people have done something to help these Arab peoples. No doubt their motives have been mixed in what they have done, but we have now proved that our aim was not merely to substitute our own yoke for the Turkish yoke. I think rather we hoped that these Arab nations would play a part in a society of mutual good will, a society perhaps more effective than that which Europe herself has been able to build up within her own frontiers. That in a policy such as we have followed there are risks, no one will deny. That in the case of, at any rate, one Arab country there have been deplorable lapses, no one will deny. But in any policy of farsightedness and of vision such risks are unavoidable. If it is held in some quarters that we have by this Treaty lost a vassal, perhaps we have gained a friend and, maybe, a partner.
This policy that we have pursued is an experiment which has been followed by no other great Empire in the history of the world, a policy of voluntarily substituting co-operation for repression, good will for subjugation, a free partnership instead of the old centralised domination by force. It has been a great experiment. It may succeed, or it may fail. If it succeeds, I think we, and the partners in this experiment., will have given something of lasting value to the world.
In the actual bringing about of the Treaty the Foreign Secretary is to be congratulated for insisting that the Sudan and the military clauses, the most difficult ones, should be dealt with first. It has been said that these clauses may not, in fact, be sufficient, but I think the explanation that the Foreign Secretary gave us shows that they are in fact adequate. Indeed the delegations of the two countries have almost succeeded in obtaining the unobtainable. The Treaty ensures that the independence of Egypt, first declared in 1922, is now real and apparent, and yet it makes our own position as regards our lines of communication even more secure than it was before. Instead of being nearly 100 miles away from the Canal, we are now on the Canal; we have, in addition, a first-class network of communications over the Delta; we have, in addition, the good will of Egypt in a way that we have never had it before. It is true that the new barracks will be regrettably far from the


lights of Cairo, but I am not sure that that in itself is not, perhaps, a good thing. Ever since the days of Cleopatra the capital of Egypt has exercised a fascination on the military mind, and heart, not always to its advantage. If Egypt still has its Cleopatras, I daresay the British Army has its Antonys. I am speaking of the Army—not of the Cabinet.
There are two or three points about which I hope the Government will say a little more before the Debate closes. The first is the question of water. In the Treaty the only thing that is said about it is that "adequate provision" will be made. I think we should be told whether or not there is to be any addition to the present fresh water canal; whether there are to be any emergency reservoirs; what precautions, if any, are to be taken to safeguard whatever arrangements will actually be made. The second point that I hope they will say something about is this: We know that the roads and railways West of the canal are going to be improved, but what about the railways and roads to the East? At the moment there is only one single-track railway going east and a couple of very indifferent roads. I should like to ask whether any immediate improvement is going to be made to the east of the Canal in respect of those communications. These are only two details in a Treaty which I think all parties in both countries can join in regarding as a new starting-point in our relations. Our own ideas and methods of civilisation to-day are spread over a quarter of the earth's surface. But we must not forget that the civilisation of Egypt has extended over a longer period of unbroken continuity than that of any other country in the world. We sometimes feel sympathy for the British schoolboy who has to learn dates back to a mere William the Conqueror, 1066. We forget the wretched Egyptian schoolboy who has to learn dates back to Cheops over a period of not one but five thousand years. It is very fitting that, in this Treaty between a National Government of Great Britain and a United Front of Egypt, the oldest and newest civilisations should join hands.

7.26 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: We have had a series of speeches from people who have had long and intimate experience in Egypt and the Sudan. I want to make

only a few observations as one who has always taken great interest in the question and who followed the negotiations in 1930 with considerable interest. Ever since the day, nearly 30 years ago, when President Roosevelt exploded a bombshell when he came here, having visited Egypt, and declared that we must either govern or get out, our position in Egypt has been anomalous. After the 1922 Declaration it seems to me that our position has been not only anomalous but extremely illogical, and to foreigners absolutely inexplicable. Of course, after a long period of difficulty, suspicion and confusion it is not easy to put everything right at once. It seems to me, however, that the circumstances of the last few years have given a wonderful opportunity to the Governments in both countries to settle a great many of the outstanding problems between them. It is often said that opportunity comes to everyone at some time or other, and that the difference between success and failure is simply whether you seize the opportunity or not. It seems to me that both Governments can be congratulated on the fact that they have seized the opportunity of the events of the last few years, and the result is this Treaty. We have to reject it or to accept it. That is the only attitude to take in regard to it.
It is impossible to go into all the various details outlined in the White Paper. No doubt they were the result of long discussion and compromise on one side or the other. After all, far more important than any actual words in the Treaty itself must be the spirit in which it is carried out. Those who object to the Treaty—they are not vocal in the House, but they may be outside—must not blame the Government of to-day. They must blame the Government of 1922. That was the moment when this country, if it so desired, could have decided whether Egypt was to be a colony, protectorate, Dominion or whatever it may be. The Government of that day decided to give Egypt independence, and ever since we have been proclaiming the independence of Egypt without really fulfilling our promise, certainly in the eyes of the Egyptians. I am very glad that this Debate has taken place, and I hope some attention outside the House will be given to it, because I believe it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the future


of Egypt both to this country and to the Empire. Her friendship is vital to us in the Mediterranean. It is vital to us for all questions in regard to the Near East, and indeed to India and beyond. That friendship, if it is to be real, must be freely given and gladly reciprocated. It must be something more than a mere tie of mutual interest. There must be give-and-take on both sides.
The French have a proverb which, being interpreted, means that, if you are going to make a satisfactory bargain, it must be one in which each side makes some concession. If one party thinks either that it has given too much, or that it has got too much, it is not going to be a good or lasting arrangement. It is true that in this Treaty we have not got all we want, but we have got what is essential, and as a result of it, I believe that our influence in Egypt, although it may take on a different form, may, in many directions be even greater in the future than it has been ih the past. When we have tried to solve difficulties, some of which the Foreign Secretary outlined this afternoon, in the past suspicion was not only possible, but almost certain from the Egyptian side. To-day, in the solution of those same difficulties, I believe that friendship will be certain. When the Treaty has been finally ratified, it will do away with what has seemed to be always the great stumbling block in coming to any arrangement—the complex that they possessed in regard to British domination. That will go. From the day that Egypt becomes a member of the League of Nations the outlook of her politicians will be enlarged. Up to date it has so often been confined merely to this country or been the concern of the British Empire. It is not an exaggeration to say that the popularity and influence of any Egyptian statesman, whether he wished it or not, was relative to his anti-British views. I believe that the Treaty will eradicate that complex from the Egyptian politicians.
It is possible to quibble and to criticise various details of the Treaty, but; as my hon. Friend has said, all things that are worth doing must have an element of risk in them. We have extended the hand of friendship and confidence to Egypt, and I believe that we shall not

be disappointed in the result. If, after all, our military advisers are satisfied about the military clauses, there is not very much more that the amateur can say. It is true that in future the flag will not fly over the Citadel, but really, if the flag were to be a symbol to the majority of the Egyptian people that foreign domination was to be the cause always of suspicion, the mere continuation of that practice is too high a price to pay for the continuation of those sentiments against us. As to the question raised about the use of roads, as I read the paragraph, I imagine that it means that roads should not be less than 20 feet, but that is a drafting point to which, no doubt, the Under-Secretary of State will reply.
I have always regarded the Sudan as the best governed country in the world. There is never any nonsense about examinations and there are not a large number of Parliamentary Questions in regard to the Sudan. Whether that is a consequence of good government or not, I do not think that anyone who has visited the Sudan can have any two opinions about the efficiency of the government of that country. To-day, owing to what has happened in Abyssinia, the future of the Sudan is even more important than it has been in the past. I am glad that a certain vagueness still continues in regard to the exact meaning of the word "Condominium." I should prefer that the Sudan should not be under any financial obligation to the Egyptian Government. If and when it is possible, and the economic and financial conditions of the Sudan allow it, I hope that the annual payment of 750,000 Egyption pounds will cease, and that the Egyptian Government and the Sudanese Government will settle their differences as quickly as possible for what, in round figures, amounts to from £300,000 to £400,000. The Treaty brings to an end that impossible situation which placed upon this country the final responsibility for preserving and maintaining order, when we had practically no interest and no power whatever in determining, shaping or influencing those conditions which produced riots or lack of law and order. We always paid the price.We got the blame if Egypt was discontented. think that the Egyptian Government will probably be far better able to deal effectively with the Egyptian students than we ever could in times gone by. In


a year, when perhaps successes in foreign politics have been none too numerous, this is a, cause for congratulation, in which I would like to raise my humble voice, both to the Minister and to all the officials, both here and in Egypt. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be the last to minimise the work that they have done to bring about this Treaty, and I firmly believe that it will open a long and a happy chapter in the relations between England and Egypt.

7.37 p.m.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) reminds me of the hymn which speaks of
The roseate hues of early dawn,
The brightness of the day,
and later of
How fast they fade away.
We have heard much the same hopes uttered about the Treaty with Iraq and the abolition of the Capitulations in Persia. We have heard it about our arrangements in Ireland, but the actual effects have not been so rosy. While I believe that this Treaty is a logical and necessary step in the development of our foreign relations, I do not believe that it will have any serious effect in the long run upon improving the relations between Egypt and the rest of the world. It would be much too much to hope for having regard to what we have seen in Iraq and in other countries in the last few years.
But I will take up the thread of the Debate where it was dropped by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin). He inquired whether the British troops could in an emergency be used in Egypt. From a perusal of the Treaty, I take the answer to be that there is nothing whatever to stop it, and that as allies we can be called upon to use our forces in support of our mutual interests, without au let or hindrance from the text of the Treaty. On the other hand, the Foreign Secretary, in delivering his address, was quite specific in saying that the roads were to be used and the troops were there for the protection of Egypt from foreign aggression, but that does not exclude them from being used at any time for the protection of major Egyptian interests at the invitation of the Egyptian Government. Who can doubt

among such interests might be to give assistance to the civil or militray power in Egypt in protecting the lives of those who are living under the protection of the Government, which would include foreigners?
Secondly, he suggested that there was no reason whatever to think that Italy and Greece would agree to modifying the Capitulations in any circumstances. I do not think he had good grounds for that belief. I feel confident that the Italian and the Greek Governments will, in duty bound, take steps to ensure that, when the Capitulations are modified or abolished, they will be modified or abolished in circumstances and under conditions which will give legitimate protection to their nationals. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in a fit of morbid self-flagellation, was ascribing to the rich merchants of Alexandria and Cairo the whole responsibility for raising objections to the abolition of Capitulations. It ill befits a prosperous merchant of Wolverhampton to make these accusations against the decent merchants of Cairo and Alexandria. The fact is that those who object to Capitulations are not the rich, who can very well pay the taxation, or the well-to-do, who have always managed in Egypt to do themselves fairly well, but the poorest and the humblest folks, the men on a weekly wage, married men, very often living a hard struggle in Cairo or Alexandria, who have no friends and no influential supporters, and who may have to suffer great indignities and injustices unless reasonable protection is given to them. That has always been recognised as being the main difficulty of abolishing Capitulations, and I strongly resent these remarks coming from what was once the great Liberal party ascribing to one of the most liberal of institutions, namely, the Capitulations, a purely selfish origin.
On the Treaty itself there is only one Clause on which I venture to offer a word of criticism, namely, Article 14, which provides that any treaties or agreements inconsistent with the Treaty shall be regarded as abrogated. It adds:
Should either High Contracting Party so request, a list of the agreements and instruments thus abrogated shall be drawn up in agreement between them within six months of the coming into tome of the present Treaty.


With all respect, I submit that it is unduly vague to abrogate a miscellaneous body of documents without putting them into an annexe. It is difficult enough in any circumstances to know whether any particular commercial or diplomatic instrument is involved, but when there is no list and no statement it may very well be a matter of great difficulty in the Egyptian courts in future, and even at the Permanent Court of International Justice, if we do not take steps to draw up such a list and make it absolutely specific, so that we may know where we stand. It is very necessary now that we at least should request the Egyptian Government to draw up such a list in agreement with ourselves, and that that document should be published and laid before Parliament. It is really a very dangerous precedent, and my brief studies in the Library have not brought to light any similar clause in any Treaty.
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary upon having secured the removal of the troops to Cairo into barracks which are to be built, as to four-fifths, at the expense of the Egyptian Government. That is a much better and more just arrangement than that which we made in Mesopotamia, where we are paying anything up to £4,000,000 for barracks, no part of which is being refunded by the Government of Iraq, in a country in which we ourselves have to pay £100,000 for guards to protect our own countrymen against the inhabitants of the country we are protecting.
While I realise the strategical importance to Egypt of the Suez Canal, I hope that in years to come it will not be unduly stressed. Lord Salisbury used to say that there were some people who if they possessed the whole world would require the moon as a strategical outpost. We managed to conquer and keep India right through the Mutiny without any assistance from the Suez Canal. We took and kept Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand long before the Suez Canal was invented or thought of. The Canal has a certain importance to us but far less than is generally realised. It is quicker to go to New Zealand via the Panama Canal or via South Africa than through the Suez Canal. It is often cheaper for freight to come from Mombassa via the Cape to

this country than by the Suez Canal. I do not question the value of the Canal as one of the links in our communications, but we have a better line of communication via the Cape than we shall ever have through the narrow waters of the Mediterranean. I feel that by the time we have spent £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 in Mesopotamia in guarding our air communications to India, and £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 on the Suez Canal in guarding our sea route to India, and by the time we have added our expenses in Cyprus, Palestine, Gibraltar and Malta, we shall possibly have put more money into that particular line of communication than it deserves. We ought to think more of the open sea route, remembering that even now, thanks to the high costs of Suez Canal dues, a great deal of shipping goes via the Cape and finds it cheaper to do so than through the Canal.
I welcome the expressions of good will towards Egypt which have fallen from the lips of many hon. Members. I welcome the atmosphere of friendliness in which the Treaty has been concluded, but statesmen come and statesmen go, and all that remains in 10 or 20 years' time is the written word, the document now before us. In 10 or 20 years' time much may depend on how this document is to be construed. I should like to put one question. The Canal is free to the shipping of all nations in peace and in war, by virtue of the Treaty which was signed on the 29th October, 1888. That Treaty was signed by Great Britain and the great Powers of Europe, and also by Turkey on behalf of Egypt. Turkey's signature still binds Turkey. Are we quite sure that Turkey's signature on the 29th October, 1888, is still considered by the Egyptian now to bind Egypt? If not, I suggest that she should be invited formally to adhere to that Treaty, in order that there may be no possible doubt in the minds of any foreign Powers that, when Egypt has entered the League of Nations, and is therefore bound by the Covenant of the League, she will still regard her obligation to maintain the Canal open in peace or in war as not less binding than before.
We might have, for example, a war between Japan and Russia, in which either Power or both Powers would seek to use the Canal for the passage of their fleets. One of them may have been


regarded as the aggressor by the League of Nations and have been so declared. In that case Egypt, unless she feels bound by the Treaty of 29th October, 1883, might well reply: "We are bound under Article 16 to close our territory—and the Canal is our territory—against the movements of any foreign ships of war." I hope there is no dubiety and that the Egyptian Government do regard themselves as bound by that Treaty, but I cannot find that they have ever said so. There is nothing to that effect in this Treaty nor in any correspondence which has been exchanged, nor, as far as I know, in any public utterances of the Egyptian Government.
Finally, I wish to add my own humble voice in tribute to the work that has been done in bringing this Treaty to a successful conclusion. I remember some of the difficulties surrounding negotiations in regard to Egypt at Versailles in 1919 and again in 1921–22. A great deal of flood water has flowed under the bridges of the Nile since then. It is a great achievement on the part of the Foreign Secretary to have reached a definite agreement, and I feel sure that he will find that it will make progress in other directions easier. As I listened to his concluding words I was reminded of a speech of Disraeli in this House in February, 1876, on this same topic of Egypt, in which he said
The Government of the world is not a mere alteration between abstract right and overwhelming force. The world is governed by conciliation, compromise, influence, varied interests, the recognition of the rights of others, coupled with the assertion of one's own; and, in addition, a general conviction, resulting from explanation and good understanding, that it is for the interest of all parties that matters should be conducted in a satisfactory and peaceful manner.
In the conduct of these negotiations and in his speech to-day the Foreign Secretary has shown himself to be a worthy follower of these maxims.

7.52 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is the first Debate on Egypt in my lifetime which has been unanimous, or almost unanimous, because I suppose I should exclude the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) from agreement with the rest of the House. His views are always interesting, and, although we sometimes get the accent of Mussolini among them, I think that in this case the Capitulations

may go without very much trouble in the future. I would point out in connection with Capitulations that we are committed by this Treaty to secure their abolition. If we are unable to persuade Italy and Greece to assent to their abolition, at the risk once more of being charged with the crime of perfidiousness, which is so often hurled unjustly at British diplomacy, it will not make it easy
to abolish the Capitulations. I think that even the hon. Member for Hitchin must agree with me that they should be abolished. In a world where injustice not merely to foreigners but to the indigenous population is growing day by day at a desperate pace, we cannot regard Egypt and the new Egyptian Government as being likely to make things worse than far more civilised and older-established Government shave already done.
I hope that this is the last Debate that we shall have on Egypt. My memory goes back to the countless Debates that we have had on this sore subject. I remember the deportation of Zaghlul and the fury that that aroused in Parliament. I remember the Denshawi Debates. I remember long ago the only speech that I ever heard from Mr. Gladstone, in 1891, on the Newcastle Programme, when he laid it down even then that our occupation of Egypt was temporary and should be brought to an end. All this long history which in England has been mostly forgotten is very clearly present in the mind of every Egyptian. I think that, on the whole, our policy in Egypt has been a success and has been justified, but let no one mistake the. fact that our policy in Egypt has been quite unlike our policy, which has been even more successful, in other parts of the world. The fact of the matter is that ever since we first went to Egypt we have been carrying on a dual policy. We have been protecting the Suez Canal and at the same type interfering with the Government of Egypt.
It was a principle in the policy of Lord Cromer that his young men who went out to Egypt to help should remember that they were there paid by, and acting in the interests of, the Egyptians, and that their responsibility was to the Egyptians and not to England. That policy, which I do not recommend, is not carried out in the rest of our Colonial Empire. It has certain drawbacks. Our


young men went to Egypt to carry out the policy of the Egyptian Ministers. Our men went to India to carry out a British policy, to import into that country civilisation, western ideas, to spread English culture, so that to-day the educated Indian is an Englishman in thought and bases his political ideas on Burke and Macaulay. In Egypt, on the other hand, after 54 years, our officials still talk bad Levantine French.
There has been no propaganda for English culture in Egypt. We have not tried to force ouselves upon that country in any way. That policy is not all to the good. The condition of the fellaheen, the poor Egyptian, is far worse than it is in adjoining countries, such as Palestine. The political ideals of that country, the development of freedom and justice, falls behind what obtains in our Colonies. From 1882 and throughout we have not sought to seize Egypt and to amalgamate it, with the result that even after all the stormy times it is possible to part company with Egypt once for all and to base upon that separation a friendship and understanding for the future. Mahatma Gandhi used to say to me: "What we want in India is not more honest English officials, not more intelligent English officials, not more devoted English officials, but a change of heart in Englishmen."
I think we have in this Treaty a definite change of heart in our attitude towards Egypt, which may well bring about an alliance of value not merely to Egypt but to England as well. This is not a case, and the German Government should fully understand it, where the British Empire has failed. It is a case where the British Empire will, I hope, show its real strength, not by spreading domination but by extending its circle of friends and allies. It is obvious that the change of feeling which has come about in the last year or so in Egypt is due in no small part to the fear of Mussolini, the fear of the Roman Empire being re-established throughout the North of Africa. That has blotted out the memories of their grievances against us. We start afresh, as common friends without domination. The Egyptians are an extraordinarily proud people, proud of their antiquity. They are extremely touchy. They know that their arms are not sufficient to protect their own

country. That makes them all the more difficult to deal with, and all the more anxious for one thing which is not in the Treaty—that we should treat them as equals.
I wish those clauses were not in the Treaty which prevent the Egyptian Army coming out to help us so that they could reciprocate the assistance we promise to them. Throughout the War there was a tendency in the War Office to refuse the use of colonial troops, whether from Malta, Africa or other places. The caste feeling is our worst enemy. The reluctance to put ourselves on all-fours with other people, to drink with them, to intermarry with them and to talk to them as though they were equals, has been our chief handicap throughout the world. If this Treaty means that we are still to pose as the great protectors of Egypt, and that the Egyptians are still to feel themselves as being a kept nation, we shall not get the right relations between this country and Egypt. If, on the other hand, we can come to the belief that the Egyptians are every bit as good as Englishmen and that the Egyptian Army might be made as efficient as the British Army, that their Air Force might give assistance to our altogether insufficient forces, that they are of use to us and that we consider them to be of use, we should find in Egypt firm allies who would understand us and who would help us. That, I think, should be the aim of statesmen in both countries; not merely to forget the past, but to realise the meaning of political equality.
I have to say this because the right hon. Gentleman in bringing this Treaty before us seemed to be advocating its adoption in a complete vacuum, as though it. had nothing whatever to do with the international situation and had no relation to the Treaties, not so happy and unfortunate in their results. It is only seven years ago since we passed a Treaty in this House with Iraq. The Foreign Office were responsible for that Treaty, as they are responsible for this Treaty. In spite of warnings in this House no steps were taken to protect our friends and our interests. Money was poured out like water, railways were given to Iraq. Protection costing £1,400,000 a year was given to Iraq. Within three years they were massacring the Assyrians because they had fought for us in the War, and more recently they have been


interfering in Palestine and have been massacring Jews in Baghdad. That Treaty was acclaimed in this House, not unanimously, but it has now become a standard of how not to do it in the future. I should like to know from the Foreign Secretary on the appropriate occasion, why it is that we maintain our Treaty with Iraq, and what confidence he can give that relations with Egypt will not be as they are with Iraq.
The provision which I consider to be the best point in the Treaty is that the officers of the army which they are building up in Egypt will be trained in England. I hope there will be no doubt that all the officers who can be sent here for training will find accommodation and will be given education at Sandhurst and Woolwich and in our aerodromes and flying schools, on exactly the same terms as Englishmen. I can conceive of no bond which would draw Egypt closer to this country than common training and common responsibility as the result of that training. There, again, we can prove that we have now a new conception of what "subject races" can become when they secure freedom.
But let us consider for what we are continuing our Army in Egypt. The cost of that Army I do not know. In the old days under the Protectorate, and for 40 years before, Egypt paid the whole cost of the British Army in Egypt, in the same way as India pays for the cost of British troops in India. That came to an end when Egypt obtained nominal independence some 12 years ago. Here we are keeping a considerable Army in Egypt at our own cost and a more considerable Air Force, both of which may be wanted badly in this country. They are kept in Egypt to protect the Suez Canal. Our military ideas as to how the Suez Canal can be protected have undergone no change as the result of the Great War. As a matter of fact, no one in the last European War would venture to use the Mediterranean, let alone the Suez Canal. Aeroplane bases and submarine bases make the Mediterranean a closed sea in war, and all our communications go round the Cape. Submarines and aeroplanes would make it quite impossible to use the Suez Canal in the next war. There would be no object in using the Suez Canal, and no army that we could maintain would stop a ship being blown

up in the Canal and thus blocking it completely. We must realise that we cannot protect the Suez Canal by an Army or an Air Force in Egypt; we can only protect it by winning the war, and we shall want our forces where they are strategically most useful.
Now let me turn to the Sudan. Egypt is to continue to pay £750,000 a year to assist the Government of the Sudan—an assistance to the Sudanese budget. I am not quite clear whether this £750,000 will now be reduced by the cost of keeping the Egyptian Army in the Sudan as well as our own. For the sake of a proper pride I gather that the Egyptians insist on sending an army to the Sudan. If a larger army is to be a new burden on the Sudan budget, we shall certainly find the happy position in the Sudan to-day materially worsened. We have not much benefited the people of Egypt by our 54 years occupation, but there can be no doubt that we have materially benefited the people of the Sudan. I am always doubtful whether the Sudan or Nigeria is the best governed province in the world, but the Sudan is undoubtedly a feather in our cap. I wish that centralisation had not recently spread to that country because under Sir John Maffey I think it was an example to the whole of the British Empire. There you have a poor country, and an additional charge of, say, £500,000 on their budget will mean that the people in the Sudan will suffer in much the same way as the people in Nyasaland are suffering in order to pay the interest on the cost of the Zambesi Bridge.
The Treaty that is brought forward to-day has the united blessing of the people and Parliament in Egypt and the people and Parliament in this country. It might have been brought forward earlier, but it has come at last. Our occupation, our domination of that country, has come to an end. Let us hope that we may never again find ourselves at cross purposes with the Egyptian people and the Egyptian Government. Let us hope that if the trial comes, if once more we have our backs to the wall, we shall not again be using Egypt, controlling Egypt, forcing the felaheen into compulsory labour, but that we shall have fighting with us in the air, on the sea and on the land a free people worthy of their ancient name.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I have listened, as I am sure all hon. Members have listened, with great interest to the eloquent and in places stirring speech made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I am afraid that at the end I was still in some doubt as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of or is opposed to the new Treaty. He supported it in parts of his speech, and in other parts he made many most uncalled-for and unhelpful remarks. His speech constitutes the only discordant note in the whole of the Debate. I think it was unnecessary for him to suggest that the Egyptians, with whom we have at such difficulty just concluded this important Treaty, would be likely or liable to abuse their new independence and under cover of our protection perpetrate crimes. Those were the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's own words. But I will say no more about that.
I wish to join in the general praise and gratification at the signing of the Treaty. I wish to congratulate the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. At the same time, I think we should also congratulate the Foreign Office, and the members of the Residency in Cairo. I was a junior member of the Foreign Office at the time the Henderson negotiations were being carried on and I have a little idea of the immense amount of work which has undoubtedly had to be done in order to achieve this important result. What is more, I think we may be gratified by the fact that this present Treaty is in every respect a great improvement upon all previous drafts. The Treaty which is before us to-day combines a real understanding of the just national ambitions of the Egyptian people with proper safeguards for the security of the vital communications of the British Empire.
Many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, had some apprehensions at first about the security of our Imperial communications, and their attention was attracted, in the first place, to the Articles dealing with the possibility of the revision of the military Articles after a period of 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) belittled the importance of Egypt stragetically, as did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman

the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to some extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, in particular, said that because air travel is so rapidly developing, Egypt and the Canal will become of little importance; but surely Egypt is every bit as much an essential link in our air communications with the British Empire. Whatever may happen to seaborne traffic through the Canal, the link of Egypt in the chain of our air communications with the British Empire will remain of the utmost importance. As I have said, many hon. Members had apprehensions because of the Articles which lay down that should there be differences of opinion as to the ability of the Egyptian Army after 20 years to maintain the security of Egyptian territory, the question shall be referred to an international tribunal. Many hon. Members feel that if Egypt is a vital link in British Empire communications and if her independence is vital to Empire security, then we must be the last judges as to whether or not the Egyptian Army is capable of safeguarding that important territory.
I think our minds reflect upon the unhappy experience which undoubtedly there has been in the working of these international tribunals. Perhaps the most striking case was the international tribunal at The Hague which dealt with the important question of the AustroGerman Customs Union. I think it is accepted by every unbiased international jurist that some of the judges were not altogether uninfluenced by political considerations, and that it was not a mere coincidence that the British and Scandinavian representatives voted in favour of the legality of the Customs Union, whereas those Powers who were more directly interested voted the other way. Therefore, many of us had some misgivings about that particular Article; but I think our minds have been entirely set at rest by my right hon. Friend's assurances this afternoon. He has assured the House that not only the principles underlying Articles 6 and 7, but the essential features of those Articles must, under his interpretation of the Treaty, be maintained in the event of any revision. I hope I shall be corrected if I am misinterpreting what the right hon. Gentleman said.
My chief purpose in rising to-night is to ask three questions as to the legal interpretation of certain Articles of


which I have given the Foreign Office previous notice. My first question deals with Article 6 and with Paragraph 2 of the agreed Minute. Reference is there made to the risk of rupture with a third State and also to "an apprehended international emergency." This may occur anywhere in regard to countries in which Egypt is not directly interested. An international emergency may occur in any part of the globe, in our relations with any other country. I submit that events may move so quickly in the development of an international emergency that the effective consultation provided for in Article 6 may be impossible. International emergencies may blow up suddenly and we may find that our need for sending troops or reinforcements to the Canal is urgent. Although it is too late to alter the Treaty, I wish that in Article 6 it had been stipulated that this consultation should take place "whenever possible." I do not think that in every case consultation will prove possible. Accordingly, my first question is: "Could, in such circumstances, insufficiency of consultation be deemed to invalidate Article 7?"
My second question relates to Article 7 itself. I think it will be found that there is an apparent disagreement between the first and second sentences of this Article. The first sentence refers to the aid to be given
should either of the High Contracting Parties become engaged in war.
The second sentence goes on to describe and define the nature of that aid but it refers to other eventualities. It mentions not only the event of war, but
the imminent menace of war or apprehended international emergency.
It seems to me that those two sentences an3 not entirely compatible one with the other. I wish to ask therefore: "Can there be any legal doubt that permission to send troops or reinforcements applies as soon as an emergency is apprehended and is not confined to the actual outbreak of war?" My third question refers to the same Article. In the first place, it may be asked, who is to be the judge of the existence of a state of apprehended emergency? It is a very vague, wide phrase. Those who have studied history know full well that to define even a state of emergency has proved extremely difficult in the past, and to define a state of apprehended emergency would be even

more difficult. I submit that disagreement between ourselves and Egypt, with the best will in the world, is very easily possible and therefore my third question is this: "Is it sufficient for His Majesty's Government to inform the Egyptian Government that they apprehend an emergency, in order to enjoy the military facilities afforded under Article 7?" I hope my Noble Friend will be able to give the House the answers to those three questions. I feel that they may be vital in the interpretation of the Treaty in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to consultation with the Dominions and it is right that mention should be made of the position of the Dominions. We all welcome the fact that they have been so fully consulted during these negotiations. Nevertheless I think there is a question of principle involved. I am rather sorry that this Treaty should have been signed on our side by His Majesty only, in respect of the United Kingdom. After all, this is not just a trade Treaty. It is a Treaty which may involve us in war. I do not know the exact constitutional position but of one thing I am certain, that there is only one Crown in the British Empire. There are not six Crowns and consequently if the King is at war, the whole Empire is at war. Therefore it seems to me that a Treaty of this kind, involving the possibility of war, ought not to be ratified only by one of the nations of the British Empire. Now that the Statute of Westminster has been passed, a Treaty which involves the possibility of war and also military commitments, should, I think, before final acceptance be ratified by all the Governments of His Majesty and not by that of the United Kingdom only.
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) meant when he said that he hoped the type of person who would occupy the important position of Ambassador in Egypt would be the type of the Indian Provincial Governor. I think that he was a little unfortunate in his way of putting it and I do not believe that he can have meant exactly what his words seemed to convey. I can only suggest, looking back on the long list of illustrious representatives whom we have had in Cairo, that he was trying to say, without mentioning names, that he hoped


that in future we should have the benefit of the services of distinguished men of the type of Lord Lloyd.

Mr. MANDER: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I said I did not desire to make the slightest reflection on the many distinguished gentlemen who have filled the position of High Commissioner, but that in future the position of an Ambassador would be so difficult, that I wanted somebody to fill it who had had political experience in this House, somebody of the type of Lord Willingdon, whose name I mentioned as the best example I could think of.

Mr. SANDYS: I accept the explanation. The hon. Member did refer to Indian Provincial Governors who had been in this House, and the only person I can think of at the moment who has been a Provincial Governor and has also been High Commissioner in Egypt, is the Noble Lord whose name I mentioned.

Mr. MANDER: Lord Willingdon was a Provincial Governor.

Mr. SANDYS: But he was not High Commissioner in Cairo. I do not think that we can hope for better than that our representatives in Cairo in the future as Ambassadors, will serve the country as well as Lord Lloyd and our other distinguished High Commissioners have done in the past, and will do as much to maintain good relations between the two countries. It is a man of the Ambassador type that we want to send out to represent us in Egypt in the future. Finally, I join in the hopes expressed in all parts of the House as to the future. The past connection between Egypt and Great Britain has been profitable to both countries. The interests of the two peoples are inseparable and I think my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right in emphasising, that it is the spirit of this Treaty which will make for its success or failure. Let us not quibble too much about words. It is the spirit, the spirit of friendship between our two countries, which in the long run will decide the future. Egyptian national aspirations having thus been satisfied and British strategic needs having been safeguarded, I hope that in the years to come the efforts of our two countries will be directed not

so much to asserting their rights as to seeking new and wider fields for useful, free, and honourable co-operation.

8.35 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): We have had in this House during recent years a good many Debates on questions of international affairs. Not all those Debates, I am afraid we should all agree, have been of a very cheerful character. In some of them we have had to recognise that the factors which we, in all parts of the House, regard as important for the maintenance of peace are not at present obtainable; in some others we have had to recognise that there are still serious weaknesses in the structure of international law and order which it has been the aim of everybody in this country since the War to set up. I do not mean to-night to make any comment on these events. They are not pertinent to to-day's discussion. I will only remark that these events and these Debates have, I think, tended to produce, in the minds of some people at any rate, a sense of disillusionment. There are people in this country who were beginning to feel that it was idle to hope that conciliation can ever take the place of force or that there can ever be found an agreed solution to all the problems of this troubled world. For such as those, if there be any in this House to-night, it is to be hoped that the Treaty which has been concluded between Great Britain and Egypt, and to which this House is asked to-night to give its approval, will give strong encouragement and that it will reaffirm their faith in the good sense that should govern human relationships.
Here we have, I will not say a controversy, because I do not think it has been in the strict sense a controversy, but a negotiation which has continued over 14 long years. In 1922 His Majesty's Government made their declaration with regard to Egypt, that she should be henceforth an independent sovereign State. Since then there have been on many occasions attempts to negotiate a treaty, and to-day, after 14 years, we meet to give our approval to the final and successful conclusion of all those long efforts. Sometimes one would think, if I may say so, to listen to hon. Members opposite, that the only serious attempt that has been made was the attempt made by the Labour Government in 1930. That,


of course, is not the case. Everybody has wished to get this agreement, and there has been a sincere desire in all parties that a final treaty should be made with Egypt. In 1922 this country did give her word, and she has always meant to keep it. That, I think, has in reality been recognised to-day in all parts of the House. There has been no opposition of principle to a treaty, and there has been no serious opposition to this Treaty. Indeed, I do not remember ever hearing such unanimity in a debate on a question of importance.
Both the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), speaking for the official Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), speaking for the Liberal Opposition party, gave their approval to tae Treaty, and I should like to thank them for the whole-hearted way in which they did it. I believe the complete unanimity in this country with regard to the Treaty between this country and Egypt will be a very good augury for the future and that it will be essentially valuable in giving it a good start. Having said that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, I must confess, hardly in the whole of his speech mentioned the Treaty again. I am told that there are eminent people who go to Egypt on visits of archaeology and who excavate and find things of great interest. I think that the hon. Gentleman must have been doing as the Romans do. He seems to have gone to the Library on a mission of archaeology, and excavated, and he found some very interesting things, things so interesting that he devoted the whole of the rest of his speech to them.
He found, for instance, that there were certain provisions in this Treaty which were almost, if not quite, identical with those in the Treaty negotiated by the Labour Government in 1930. He found, too, that some of these provisions had been hotly opposed by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House in 1930, and he dilated with considerable and quite natural enjoyment on the remarks made on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I certainly do not intend to maintain, and I am sure he would not, that many of these individual provisions were

or are in themselves unreasonable. One would not expect that from provisions negotiated by the late Mr. Arthur Henderson. Anyone who had the privilege of knowing Mr. Henderson would know also that he was the very acme of common sense. At the same time, if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, or any other Member on those benches, goes on to argue that because certain individual provisions are justifiable in a certain Treaty in 1936, they were therefore automatically justifiable in a different Treaty in 1930, I must confess that I think they are going too far.
I am reminded of a very old story, of a man who was being initiated into the mysteries of the game of bridge. After a few days he came to a friend and complained that he could not understand the game. "Yesterday," he said, "I played the ace of spades, and everybody applauded, but to-day I played it, and I was nearly turned out of my club." The explanation, of course, is this, that the question as to whether the ace of spades was or was not the right card to play depended not only on the ace of spades itself; it depended also on a number of other considerations. It depended on the cards in the other players' hands. It depended on the distribution of those cards, it depended on the run of the play, and so on. I suggest that it is exactly the same with the individual provisions of a Treaty. Whether or not they are justifiable depends, not only on themselves, but on the other provisions of the Treaty, on the circumstances of the negotiations, and on many other considerations. If we are to get on this subject a balanced consideration; a balanced judgment, we must look not only at the individual provisions, but at the Treaty as a whole. We must note in the two Treaties that are being compared not only what is the same, but what is different. In these two Treaties, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, there are considerable, and even vital, differences. There is, for instance, the provision in Article 16, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred, for continuing the Alliance. That was not in the 1930 Treaty, and yet it is of immense importance. This Treaty is to last for 20 years, and at the end of that period, if it is desired by either party to revise it, and if there is unfortunately no agreement between


them, the differences will be, referred to the Council of the League of Nations or whatever other body may be agreed between them. That body, however, can only recommend the solution of the differences within certain limitations.
I do not wish to go into the provisions again at length because my right hon. Friend has referred to them. They include the limitation that the revised Treaty must embody the principles contained in what may be called the Alliance articles. They include the principle that there must be consultation between the two parties in the event of a dispute threatening a rupture. They include the provision that His Majesty's Government are bound to come to the assistance of Egypt in the case of war, and that there must be facilities to enable His Majesty's Government to take such measures as they may think necessary to come to the aid of Egypt in the event of an apprehended emergency. These provisions, and all that is involved in them, are an immense safeguard to both parties, and greatly strengthen the Treaty. Yet they were not in the 1930 Treaty. That is not the only difference. There is provision for new and improved road and railway communications in accordance with strategic considerations. That was not in the 1930 Treaty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland said that he did not really see much difference between the Treaties in this respect. I think that he must have been reading the Articles and not looking at the annexes, which are printed in rather smaller type, it is true, but are quite as important, and I hope that he will take an early opportunity of looking at them. There are other military provisions.
Finally, this Treaty is not negotiated with any single political party in Egypt, but with representatives of almost all sections of opinion. That must be regarded as a valuable safeguard for the future. It will, therefore, be clear to the House, I think, that such vital additional safeguards might well justify, individual provisions which might otherwise have aroused anxiety. Hon. Members opposite ought, above all other Members of the House, to be delighted. They have got the provisions they wanted in 1930 and they have additional safeguards as well. They are in the

rare and happy position of having the best of both worlds. I would now like to come to hon. Members on this side of the House. Here, too, there has been no opposition to the Treaty; there has not even been obstructive or destructive criticism. Indeed, there has been constructive support from important quarters, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro), my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor), and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). They are Members with long personal experience of Egypt, and they support the Treaty. That applies also to other hon. Members who have not had the opportunity for such personal knowledge and they have also, on the whole, taken an attitude of careful, natural, anxious examination of the provisions with the desire to clear up points which appeared to them to be obscure.
I have been asked a number of questions which I would like to answer. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made a remark in which I understood him to complain that the Suez Canal was only mentioned as an essential means of communication between the various parts of the British Empire, and was not adequately recognised as an international waterway. I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, which I am afraid is due to the fact that he has not read the document as carefully as he usually reads such documents.

Mr. MANDER: I know what the Noble Lord is going to quote.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I am going to quote it nevertheless. The Article says:
In view of the fact that the Suez whilst being an integral part of is a universal means of communication an essential means of communication between the different parts of the Empire….
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the object of the Treaty to keep the Canal open to the shipping of all nations, and not merely to make it available to ships of the British Empire. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman's misapprehensions will be allayed.

Mr. MANDER: That was not really my point. I appreciate that it is an international waterway, and I said that it would be a fitting recognition of that fact for the League of Nations to give us a mandate to keep it open.

Viscount CRANBORNE: That is not the only point that the hon. Gentleman made. He also complained that it was not sufficiently laid down in the Treaty that it was of an international character. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) asked why in the Treaty it was stipulated that roads should be 20 feet wide, and he said that it was not sufficient. The reason is simple. Our military experts think that 20 feet is sufficient. I am not a military expert, but the opinion of the experts is that that width is enough.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is it not the fact that the military roads on the Continent, particularly those of Italy, are at least 40 to 50 feet wide? Why should they be only 20 feet in Egypt? If the roads were wider, say, 30 feet, would they not be of more use to the Egyptians?

Viscount CRANBORNE: It is possible that the roads on the Continent are too wide. It does not necessarily follow that the Egyptian roads are too narrow. If you make unnecessarily wide roads it puts an unnecessary burden on the Egyptian Government. I should have thought that the narrower the roads the better, so long as they are adequate for strategic considerations. That is really the governing factor. The hon. Member asked a question, which was also referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). They both referred to the fact that, in their opinion, the Capitulatory Powers would be very reluctant to give up their capitulatory rights. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but it is not the opinion of His Majesty's Government. I can only tell the House that the Government have every reason to think that these Governments are not taking up the unreasonable attitude attributed to them by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have every reason to think that we shall reach agreement on this point.
Then there was a point regarding the Capitulations raised by my hon. Friend

the Member for Kidderminster, who speaks, as the House knows, with a long and profound knowledge of the question of Egypt. He felt anxiety lest, with the abolition of Capitulations, the interests of foreigners in Egypt might be impaired, and he referred, as did also, I think, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, to a phrase in the 1930 Treaty which had been cut out of the present Treaty. It is perfectly true that that phrase has been cut out, but it has been replaced by an annexe, and in this annexe it is laid down as a Treaty obligation that there shall be no discrimination in legislation against foreigners. The position is, therefore, really better than it was in the 1930 Treaty, because it is now laid down as a definite Treaty obligation, and if there is a breach of this obligation it can be first taken up diplomatically and, if there is a dispute which is not arranged, it is covered by the disputes Article of the Treaty. So much for legislation. If hon. Members refer to the question of jurisdiction, because there are two types of Capitulations, I would remind them of the existence under the present Treaty of a transitional regime, during which the interests of foreigners will be left in the hands of the Mixed Courts. So it is not true to say that under the present Treaty the position of foreigners is worse than it was under the 1930 Treaty. On the contrary, it is better. I hope that explanation will allay apprehensions.
With regard to the Capitulations, also, one or two hon. Members have urged His Majesty's Government to do their utmost to secure an agreement with the other Powers. I can assure the House that that is His Majesty's Government's most earnest wish, and they intend to do their very utmost to that end. It is a principle of British foreign policy, support of which is not confined to any one party, that we always aim at a settlement by agreement, and this is no exception to the rule. We have a good example of it in the settlement reached not long ago at the Montreux Conference, and I hope that example may be followed in this case with general advantage to the world.
There were one or two further questions. The right hon. and gallant Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme spoke of the subvention to the Sudan which has been paid by Egypt in the past and asked whether it was to be increased to pay for the Egyptian troops now going into the


Sudan. I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. If he looks at the White Paper he will see the true position. The White Paper says:
As regards the subvention of £E.750,000 per annum:
The Egyptian Government, having paid that sum as representing its share in the defence of the Sudan since the departure of the Egyptian Army from the Sudan, reserves its entire freedom to withhold the subvention on the return of the Egyptian Army to the Sudan.
The position was that it was in lieu of troops that they paid this subvention towards the defence of the Sudan. Now that the troops are going back, and that they will be paid for by the Egyptian Government, it might be argued, in the opinion of the Egyptian Government, that a subvention was no longer necessary. But they do not propose to withhold it at present. If they do decide to do so they will give fair notice to the Sudan Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then it is quite clear that the Sudan continues to get both the £E.750,000 and a regiment of troops?

Viscount CRANBORNE: That is the position, but they reserve the right to withhold it after giving fair notice to the Sudan Government. Finally, there are the three questions which were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) relating to the apprehended emergency. I should like to answer the second one first, and then the first and third ones together. The second one referred, I think, to Article 7, and my hon. Friend suggested that the first and second sentences of Article 7 appeared to conflict. That is not, in fact, the case. I think the position is quite clear. The first sentence says:
Should, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6 above, either of the High Contracting Parties become engaged in war, the other High Contracting Party will, subject always to the provisions of Article 10 below, immediately come to his aid in the capacity of an ally.
The second sentence says:
The aid of His Majesty the King of Egypt in the event of war, imminent menace of war or apprehended international emergency will consist in furnishing to His Majesty The King and Emperor on Egyptian territory ….
all facilities, and so on. The second sentence is an interpretation of the first one.

It is obvious that if you are going to come immediately to the aid of another nation you must be assured of all necessary facilities before war actually breaks out, and, therefore, in the case of any apprehended international emergency you must be assured of facilities which will enable you to come to the aid of the other party.

Mr. SANDYS: I am glad that my Noble Friend interprets it in that way. I do think it is a little confusing that one eventuality should be mentioned in the first sentence and a large number of other ones in the second sentence. I hope it is quite clear that the eventualities mentioned in the second sentence equally apply as though they actually appeared in the first sentence.

Viscount CRANBORNE: That is the true interpretation. Now we come to his first and third questions. His first is whether an insufficient time for consultation under Article 6 would invalidate Article 7, and the third one is, Who apprehends the emergency? I should like to answer those questions together. If Article 6 and Article 7 are read in conjunction with points 1 and 2 of the Agreed Minute of the White Paper, the position is clear. There must be consultation between the two parties with a view to finding a peaceful solution of the dispute—that is under Article 6—and there will be similar consultation in the event of an apprehended emergency. At the same time it is clearly stated in Article 7 that in the event of war Great Britain will immediately go to the aid of Egypt as an ally. Great Britain must, then, be in a position to go to her aid. Obviously, therefore, as soon as in the opinion of His Majesty's Government an emergency has arisen they must be able to take such steps as will make their aid effective. To do this they would obviously consult with the Egyptian Government regarding the necessary facilities, for which the Treaty makes provision.
With all deference to my hon. Friend I think his point does not arise. He must remember that there will be consultation under Article 6, in the event of a situation which is likely to lead to a rupture. It is true that that consultation is primarily only for the purpose of finding a peaceful solution of the dispute, but it is incredible that when discussions on


the subject are taking place, at the time when a crisis is acute, that the representatives of the two parties should not discuss the other alternative, the failure of the peaceful solution. If they once begin to discuss that other alternative, they automatically apprehend an emergency, and the situation is resolved.

Mr. SANDYS: I do not think it is quite so simple as my noble Friend says. It is possible that there could be a difference of opinion between the Egyptian Government and ourselves as to whether an apprehended emergency existed. If it were a question which immediately affected the security of Egypt, I would grant that there would probably be no difference of opinion, but if it were an emergency in some remote part of the world in our relations with some foreign country, which did not immediately affect Egypt, but in which we had as a precaution to secure in advance our lines of Empire communication, Egypt might not wish immediately to pass this legislation, introduce a censorship and impose martial law, and afford all the other facilities provided under the Treaty. In such a case it would be essential for our legal position to be clear.

Viscount CRANBORNE: If our communications through the Suez Canal were threatened, that, would be a threat to Egypt. I think it is not more than an academic point, and I am certain that my hon. Friend would find that the situation would resolve itself.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is it possible for the noble Lord to give a reply to my question as to the future of the currency of Egypt?

Viscount CRANBORNE: That is not a question which arises under the Treaty, and I am afraid I can answer only on matters in connection with the Treaty.
I think that I have replied to the main points that have been raised in the Debate. I should like, before I conclude, to return for a few moments to the Treaty as a whole. It is not the purpose of His Majesty's Government to-night to maintain that all the advantages of this Treaty are on one side. Even if that were true, which it is not, it would be a very undesirable position. Treaties in which all the advantages are on one side do not usually last very long. Nor do I think it would be right to emphasise only the obligations by which this country and

Egypt are henceforward bound. I do not under-estimate the obligations of a treaty. They are obviously obligations of honour on which the parties could not easily default. But a cynic might say—if there are any cynics in this House—that the obligations of Treaties have not, in the affairs of nations, always prevailed over considerations of national need. The Government maintain that this Treaty rests on a firmer basis; it rests on the firm and enduring basis of mutual advantage.
This country has much to gain by an alliance with Egypt. We want the friendship of Egypt. We do not want, in perpetuity, a restive, uneasy connection, which could only lead to irritation and bitterness, and do harm to the peace and harmony of the Near East. We want a recognition by Egypt that the Suez Canal is not only an integral part of that country but a universal means of communication and also an essential means of communication between different parts of the British Empire. Finally, I think we all want to show the world how international problems can and could be settled. On her side, Egypt has much to gain. She desires to be free and independent, and to have the powerful friendship and assistance of Great Britain. [Interruption.] This country is much more powerful than the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) thinks, and it is not a good thing to sneer at this country in this House.

Mr. GALLACHER: I was not sneering at this country in this House. I said that Egypt cannot lose the friendship of this country. It has taken her years to shake off the friendship of this country and Egypt will never be free until that friendship is shaken off.

Viscount CRANBORNE: Egypt does not want to shake it off. We are both free and independent countries. Egypt wants the Suez Canal to be secure, and not to be the prey of any hostile Power; and we want the same thing. Such a community of interests is the basis of a strong and enduring alliance. To achieve this result, our two countries, one of the most modern of ancient States and one of the most ancient of modern States, have stretched out their hands to each other. The aims of both of us are peace and mutual security, and it is with the belief that It will further those aims that


His Majesty's Government submit the Treaty with confidence to the approval of this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the ratification of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, signed in London on the 26th August, 1936.

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

9.12 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move:
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 28) Order, 1936, dated the twelfth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.
This Order, and that which follows it, deal with iron and steel, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, with your permission, Sir, they were taken together.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. I am quite in favour of taking Orders together when they have some relation to each other, but are not these two Orders quite distinct?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Orders referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary deal entirely with iron and steel, and can conveniently he discussed together. The two subsequent Orders deal with the Coronation trades, and are completely different. They cannot be discussed with steel.

Dr. BURGIN: If you please, Sir, the two Orders are practically the same, and are printed in the same White Paper. It would be convenient to take the two together. When, in July of this year, we discussed Section 6 of the Finance Act, a White Paper was produced, and the full details of a cartel agreement were given. The Orders that are now before the House for approval are the machinery Orders which carry out the decision then taken by the House. Let us look into them and see whether they are effective. Let us see precisely what they do and do not imply, but let the

House not imagine that any new question of principle arises. There are two Orders. The first Order increases the rates of duty of a number of iron and steel articles to the level of those which were in force in 1935. The subsequent Order (No. 29), reduces the duties on the same iron and steel goods, broadly speaking, to 20 per cent. when they are imported into this country accompanied by a certificate of origin and under certain conditions.
Before going into the detail of the Orders, let me say a word or two about the iron and steel industries as a group of industries. There will be no dispute in the House of Commons that there is no other group of industries in the country quite so important as that group of industries which we call iron and steel. In the years of the depression, the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, our iron and steel industries were faced by a progressive decline of orders, they were being undersold in their own markets, their reserves had been depleted, and there was no possibility of their acquiring the money with which to renew their plant. And, had they renewed their plant, they would still have been undersold in their own market. In these circumstances it was necessary to have a double-barrelled Government policy; it was necessary both to provide facilities under which cheap money could be available for the iron and steel group of industries with which to renew their plant, and it was necessary to provide a protected home market within which, when the new plant had been installed, products could be sold to advantage. And so the policy of protecting the home market and the policy of introducing facilities for cheap money were complementary, and both were necessary for the recovery of iron and steel as a whole.
The fact that the iron and steel industry has recovered very considerably in this country is not likely to be contested. Up to 1935, the record year of steel production in this country was the year 1917, when the total steel production of this country was 9,750,000 tons of steel ingots and castings. In the year 1935, that production of steel ingots and castings was increased, and the rate of annual production in the period between January and October, 1936, shows that the production this year will be well over 11,500,000 tons, as against 9,750,000 tons


in the record year of 1917. Until September of this year, when a little over 1,000,000 tons were produced, the monthly output of steel in this country had never reached 1,000,000 tons in a single month. The steel output for October of this year is 1,060,500 tons, which is a record for any month in any period at any time.
The important need for iron and steel is not merely a healthy home market with a demand for its products, but an export trade, and one of the great inducements to enter into an agreement with the Cartel was the guarantee to this country of a minimum share in the great international markets of the world. The House will like to know that the year 1934, which is the basic year for the export agreement with the Cartel, is a favourable year to this country. Our proportion of exports, in the branches which are of most importance to us, was in that year at least as good as it had been in the year 1929, the year to which we are so often referred. The Cartel Agreement had, therefore, as its object that, in return for granting to this country an assurance that in the markets of the world we should retain, in the particular articles of steel to which we attach the greatest importance, at least the share which we had in the year 1934, we should grant to the Cartel countries the right to import into this country a quantity of steel, should limit that quantity of steel, and should organise its distribution fairly. That is the basis of the Cartel agreement, and in order to work out that Cartel agreement it was necessary to introduce a system of licensing of steel under the control of the Board of Trade, under the supervision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and by agreement with the various Governments concerned.
There is a Statutory Rule and Order, No. 1081, which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. It is the Iron and Steel Import Duties Regulations of 1936, made on the 12th October by the Board of Trade under the Finance Act of this year. These Regulations provide the actual machinery under which the various Cartel countries, through their governments, nominate bodies which issue quota certificates for the steel coming from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg and Sweden; and in other countries the Board of Trade does the licensing under the system which is set

out in the Order No. 1081 to which I have referred, where the quota certificate and the certificate of origin are set out as specimens. The guaranteed quantity of steel which is to come into this country was in the first year 670,000 tons, and in subsequent years 525,000 tons. Since the agreement with the Cartel has been made, there has been a world increase in the demand for steel. In every country of the world recovery of business, and in many countries of the world a tendency to expand armaments, have combined in producing a demand for steel, with the result that all figures of steel are showing a tendency to increase. The British Iron and Steel Federation have, by subsequent arrangements with the Cartel countries, brought into this country some hundreds of thousands of tons of steel additional to the minimum quantity allowed by the Cartel agreement, and, as a counterpart, have also succeeded in increasing their export quota by a considerable figure. In the first year of the agreement our exports to world markets exceeded our maximum quota rates by no less than 100,000 tons, and since then our quota rates have been fully maintained in these different markets.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does that mean that our exports of iron and steel are increasing?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give better figures than he has given.

Dr. BURGIN: I have not been asked to give them yet, but certainly our exports of iron and steel have increased. I have the actual figures here, and will give them in a moment. But the point I was desirous of making was that, whereas the Cartel agreement provided a specific figure of imports and gave a specific proportion of exports, in the events that have happened, owing to An increasing world demand, both figures have been increased. That is the only point that I want to make on that matter.

Sir P. HARRIS: The hon. Gentleman is now speaking of both imports and exports?

Dr. BURGIN: The quota allotted to us, based on our percentage of the 1934 figures in the markets of the world, has been exceeded in the first year by more than 100,000 tons—

Miss WILKINSON: And the imports have been exceeded by how many tons?

Dr. BURGIN: That was dealt with, as the hon. Member will recollect, in a question on the 11th November, when the figures were given by the President of the Board of Trade. The figure he gave was the quantity ordered, and perhaps the hon. Lady will accept that figure as indicating the quantity imported. The federation has already ordered from the Cartel about 300,000 tons of iron and steel in addition to the amount provided for in the agreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady will understand that that does not necessarily cover the same period of time, and it does not follow that it has all been delivered. I think the House will realise that there are many delays in delivery in every country where steel is being made at the present time. I do not think that figure of 300,000 is, as the hon. Lady suggests, an arithmetical multiple of 100,000. We are dealing with two figures for different periods.

Mr. ACLAND: Is it known by what amounts our exports will exceed the cartel agreement this year?

Dr. BURGIN: I think that is not yet known. The way I put it was that at the end of the first quota year we had exceeded our quota allowance by 100,000 tons, and that there has not been a moment at which we have fallen below our quota rates. It is impossible at a broken period to forecast, but my inclination is to say that with a rising demand for steel we shall exceed our quota rates.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: How does this affect the other parties to the agreement?

Dr. BURGIN: Nothing is done under this cartel agreement except by agreement between all the parties. The cartel countries, working together with the Iron and Steel Federation, make arrangements supplemental to the cartel agreement. There is no question arising with other countries.

Mr. SMITH: I understand the hon. Member to say that Britain increased her share by 100,000 tons.

Dr. BURGIN: Not her share. Let us take it by stages. There is guaranteed to this country under the cartel agreement, which is set out in Command Paper 5201, a percentage of the 1934 exports to the markets of the world. What I said was that the aggregate iron and steel that we had exported under the terms of this cartel agreement had amounted to 100,000 tons more than the quota rate based on the 1934 figures. That has been done by agreement because there is a demand for extra steel.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: I gather that the imports have increased at a larger rate than the exports. Will the hon. Member give us the percentage capacity of the steel industry at present employed?

Dr. BURGIN: The capacity, I imagine, is 100 per cent.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: What percentage of the potential furnaces are in commission?

Dr. BURGIN: I gave the House the facts that the aggregate production of this country had now reached record proportions never hitherto obtained, and that it is a rising production. I do not know of any steel productive capacity that is not being used. I know of a desire that the steel-producing capacity of this country should be increased, I know that even so there is a demand for additional steel which has been met by an order for additional quantities from the cartel countries. These are the facts I was endeavouring to put to the House. I want the House to be seized of the broad situation before I move the Orders. I will deal with points of detail when we come to them.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the furnaces are now working to the maximum of their man power? In 1929, we understand, they were working to 65 or 70 per cent. of their capacity. Have they now reached 100 per cent.?

Dr. BURGIN: The number of persons working was 112,600 in July, 1922, and had risen to 178,200 in July, 1936. The percentage of unemployed, which was 44 in January, 1931, 43.5 in January, 1932, 44 in January, 1933, was in October, 1936, 14.3 per cent. The points I am making are that the number of people working has increased, the output has reached record proportions, and the percentage of


unemployed has dropped from 44 to 14. Whether there are theoretical increases of production still possible is a matter outside what I can deal with at the moment, but these facts are themselves impressive. I have given figures for steel ingots and castings. If we were to look into the production of pig iron we would find that in 1936 we manufactured more than we did at the height of manufacture in 1929. Having authorised the conclusion of the cartel agreement, and having passed into law the Finance Act, 1936, giving power to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to recommend high rates of duty on steel on the one hand, and to allow of a permitted import of a given quantity at a low rate of duty on the other, it was necessary to have machinery to carry that agreement into effect. That machinery is provided in the two Orders now before the House. No. 28 puts the duties up; No. 29 permits the importation of given quantities of steel from foreign countries under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1936, Section 6, at the low rate of 20 per cent.

Mr. ALEXANDER: At the low rate?

Dr. BURGIN: At the rate agreed with the cartel countries. The high rates of duty are the rates prevailing in 1935. Substantially what has occurred is that the Import Duties Advisory Committee has put the duties back to what they were prior to 1935, and then by appropriate machinery they permit of the setting up of this system of quota certificates and certificates of origin for a given quantity of certain specified kinds of steel to come in at the rate of 20 per cent. On all these occasions when we are discussing Orders which restrict the arrival of a commodity which somebody may claim to want, it is natural that the House will want to know how the consumer is protected. The matter is dealt with in the White Paper and in the discussions that took place on Section 6 of the Finance Act, but the Import Duties Advisory Committee is watching the whole question of the distribution of this quantity of foreign steel which is coming into this country. They are ready to inquire into any case of difficulty of obtaining supplies, and they are at present satisfied that the reasonable requirements of consumers are being met. The distribution of the imported steel is being watched, and at present

the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied that the undertakings given by the Iron and Steel Federation regarding this distribution are being carried out.
The House understands that the principal imports of iron and steel come from cartel countries, but there are some non-cartel countries. Quite the most important country is Sweden, and certificates are being distributed amongst exporters in Sweden by a body nominated by the Swedish Government. No other foreign country sends us any large quantities of iron and steel of the kinds that are included in the scheme. Certificates for imports from non-cartel countries up to 100 per cent. of the imports in 1934, are being issued by the Board of Trade. I mention the point, because it deals with the most-favoured-nation clause. Other countries that send steel to this country are receiving a ration up to 100 per cent. of the imports that came in in 1934. The bulk of our imports of iron and steel from Sweden and Norway are not of the kinds of steel that are included in this scheme at all. A considerable part comes in free of duty, such for instance as charcoal iron, and the statistics of iron and steel as a rule treat the entire industry as one global industry. I want, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, to let the House appreciate that the goods that are included in the cartel agreement are some, but not all, of our manufactures of iron and steel. It is difficult, therefore, to find a quite comparable figure, because the figures will deal with all our imports and exports of iron and steel, while the cartel agreement deals with a limited class, though certainly an important class, and the figures are not necessarily absolutely identical.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I think we have heard one of the most extraordinary speeches to which it has been my lot to listen while I have been a Member of the House. The statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the facts as I know them simply cannot be correlated. It is true that at present the iron and steel industry is in a condition of boom. When you have such an enormous expansion of demand for a commodity, as the world has shown for iron and steel in the past 12 months, and when you have


at the same time a virtual monopoly set up, it is very natural that the industry should be working to capacity. But there is another side to it, and that is the question of the rights and interests of the consumer, and we are proposing to oppose this Order because the Government have set up a monopoly in the iron and steel trade without any adequate safeguard of the interest of the consumer. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Imports Advisory Committee were an adequate safeguard. Nothing of the kind. If one refers to the Memorandum on the Finance Act and reads the correspondence between the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the Iron and Steel Trades Federation one gets the impression that the Committee is like an old lady trying to placate a very savage dog by saying, "Good doggie," in a very timid voice. Let us examine this most extraordinary document. In February, 1935, the Import Duties Advisory Committee, writing to the President of the Board of Trade, say:
The increased home production and the improved equipment in organisation which will result from the policy that we now recommend ought to assist prices in some instances to be reduced at an early date.
When that was written, the Iron and Steel Trades Federation had not got their duty, so they categorically renewed the assurance given by their representatives to the Minister on 4th March that it was not their intention to raise prices as the result of increased protection. From then onwards we have a continued correspondence between the Committee and the Federation, which is very funny when one realises that the Committee is supposed to be a safeguard of the interests of the consumer. On 14th November a demand was made for an increase in steel, and granted. Meanwhile, there has been an enormous increase in the production of steel, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out. The increase between the date when they suggested that increased production would lead to lower prices, and the present time, has been 37 per cent. increase in the production of pig iron and 45 per cent. increase in the production of steel. Production has mounted but so have prices.

Mr. HEPWORTH: Is not that due to the increase in the price of coal?

Mr. BENSON: The increase in the price, not so much of coal as of coke. What is the history of coke and its relationship to the great iron and steel and coal trades? To begin with, coke is carefully taken out of the ascertainment so far as miners are concerned. Profits are made on it and the miners are cut out of any share in them, because coke is barred from the ascertainment. There is not a single great iron and steel concern which is not, either directly or indirectly, in possession of a coking plant. The result is that when they present those very elastic things, figures of production costs, to the Import Duties Advisory Committee they include in them the increased prices of coke which they themselves have made while cutting the miners out from any share in the advantage. That is the position of coke, and I hope we shall hear no more about the increased price.
I will continue this correspondence. On the 14th February of last year they demanded an increase of 7s. 6d. per ton in the price of soft basic billets. The protector of the British consumer, the Import Duties Advisory Committee, grant it and at the same time pat the savage dog. They say:
If an adequate supply of British billets is to be assured, it is of course essential that their manufacture and sale should be reasonably profitable."—
Everybody agrees with that—
but the Committee are glad to learn that it is the settled policy of the Federation to endeavour as far as practicable to achieve this result by a reduction in such costs of production as are within their control.
Every letter contains the same thing—the granting of the increased demand of the Steel Federation and a kind of diffident suggestion that the Steel Federation are really a body of philanthropists. In April we get another demand. This time not a modest amount of 7s. 6d. on soft basic billets, but a demand and a grant of 20s. a ton on acid billets with 0.25 per cent. carbon, and 10s. billets of a slightly higher carbon content. Here we have also the agreement of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the cost to be taken into consideration shall be the cost of the district where costs are highest. In the next month there is a further demand of 2s. 6d. a ton on basic pig iron, 3s. 6d. on hematite pig iron, 5s. a ton on soft basic billets, the price of


which has already been raised, and 5s. on the hard basic billets. Here is the extraordinary agreement that the cost of production which the Iron and Steel Trades Federation was supposed to submit to the Import Duties Advisory Committee should in effect be based upon the cost of the most-inefficient unit of the industry. These are the costs which are prevailing to-day, and which will give the most inefficient industry a profit.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: The hon. Gentleman would not like to mislead the House on the point of costs. He has made a statement that the Iron and Steel Federation are supplying to the Import Duties Advisory Committee the costs of the less efficient. Will the hon. Member accept it from me that the costs of the plants in the country are submitted to the Department?

Mr. BENSON: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that the selling price should be based upon those costs, but I did not suggest that those were the only costs supplied to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. JONES: I want to make clear to the House that the costs of the inefficient plants were not the costs supplied to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. BENSON: No. But the point is that the Import Duties Advisory Comrnittee—and these are the actual words:
While the returns show a wide range of costs, the Committee agree that, in view of the unprecedentedly high level of demand at the present time, it is impossible to base prices solely on the working of the newest and most efficient plants."
That means that they are taking the inefficient plants as their basis.

Mr. JONES: No.

Mr. BENSON: Then what does it mean?

Mr. JONES: Assume an average.

Mr. BENSON: Do they assume an average? How many plants at the moment are working at a loss?

Mr. JONES: Probably not one.

Mr. BENSON: Therefore, they are taking the most inefficient plant. That is

what I said to start with, and now the hon. Member admits it.

Mr. JONES: Oh, no—they average.

Mr. BENSON: Anyhow, after making that very useful concession to the Iron and Steel Federation they fixed the price of various articles, including basic pig iron. They fixed basic pig iron at 70s. and hematite pig iron at 80s. 6d. Those prices as far as the agreement between the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the Steel Federation is concerned obtain to-day, but you cannot buy basic pig iron at 70s. and hematite pig iron at 80s. 6d. If you look in the various trade papers you will find basic pig iron is 75s. and hematite pig iron 85s. 6d., and you will also find a, note that these are merely nominal prices and that if you want delivery particularly of hematite pig iron you have to pay a premium of 10s. a ton.

Dr. BURGIN: Is the point of the hon. Gentleman that the consumers are objecting to the price of these articles?

Mr. BENSON: My point is that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, the three gentlemen who compose it, are about as useful in standing up against the Iron and Steel Trades Federation as if they were three little maids from school. The Federation are getting their duty on the understanding that they keep to the prices agreed with the Import Duties Advisory Committee. They have the Import Duties Advisory Committee in their pockets and they flout them. There is the agreement and it was upon that agreement that Clause 6 of the Finance Bill was based. It was put before us as an agreement and that agreement has been flouted. You cannot buy hematite pig iron at the present moment without paying a premium of 10s. a ton, not on the agreed price, but at 5s. above the agreed price.

Dr. BURGIN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member continuously but I interrupted him so unsuccessfully that I want to try again. Will he say whether he is suggesting that consumers have a grievance because of the price?

Mr. BENSON: I will deal with that in a moment. [Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Secretary wants an answer, they unquestionably have a grievance Anyhow the Iron and Steel Trades Federation are flouting the Import,


Duties Advisory Committee. They are breaking their agreement with the committee. What is the reply? The Government introduce this Import Duties Order and ask the House to pass it. The Parliamentary Secretary asks: Have consumers any grievance? If he read the papers, as I no doubt he does, he would see that Alderman Harris Barrow of Birmingham has been protesting very bitterly at the result of the policy of the hon. Gentleman. He has just written to the papers stating that in 1933–34 the Birmingham Corporation paid for a steel construction contract £12 0s. 7d. and £12 10s. 9d. per ton, and that they have just let a steel contract which is of simpler construction and have had to pay £20 16s. per ton, an increase of 66 per cent. upon the price of two years ago. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not consider that to be a grievance perhaps he will kindly explain what he means by the word "grievance."
I will leave prices for a moment. The Parliamentary Secretary stressed very wisely—I agree with him heartily, and I am only too pleased to say when I agree with him—the importance of the export trade in this country. As he truly said, the agreement was recommended to this House to be embodied in the Finance Bill on the ground, with others, that it would very considerably benefit our export trade. What is happening at the present time? The demand for steel in this country is so high that the iron and steel manufacturers are absolutely neglecting the export trade. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we might exceed our quota. May I quote from a weekly journal, "The Ironmonger" of 14th November. This refers to hematite pig:
Inquiries from abroad are on an expanding scale, but producers are too preoccupied with home orders to entertain overseas business.
Let me quote from this week's issue of that organ, in regard to the outlook in iron and steel:
It is by no means easy to place orders from overseas and lately some offers of contracts for substantial tonnages have been turned down in more than one department of the market.
This applies to finished materials:
In these conditions little interest is shown in export trade, and merchants complain of the difficulty of persuading producers to accept orders for delivery within a reasonable period.

We are not going to exceed our quota this year if the iron and steel trades are not prepared to execute orders. They are neglecting the export trade because it is customary to give a rebate of anything up to 10s. a ton on export materials. They are fulfilling the higher-priced home orders and allowing the export trade to go.

Mr. L. JONES: The hon. Member tells the House that the export trade is being neglected because of the rebate on exports. He must be aware that there is a rebate system which also applies to the home trade.

Mr. BENSON: If the hon. Member will look at the market quotations he will find that export quotations are, roughly, 10s. a ton cheaper than for the home trade.

Mr. JONES: That is not the point. The hon. Member gave the impression that the iron and steel manufacturers were neglecting the export market because they had to give a rebate on their prices. I ask him bluntly whether he is not aware that there is also a rebate system affecting the whole of the home market in iron and steel.

Mr. BENSON: Of course, I am aware of that, but that does not in any way alter the fact that iron and steel for export purposes is sold at a lower price than iron and steel for home purposes. Does the hon. Member deny that?

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member said that the iron and steel trade was neglecting the export trade because of the rebate. If that argument of the hon. Member is right, is he, when he makes it, unaware that there is a rebate system which applies to the home market?

Mr. BENSON: The hon. Member is quibbling. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that some 300,000 tons of steel had been allowed into this country. If necessary we must increase that amount. We can always maintain our home market, but if necessary we must import steel to fulfil the needs of the home market. It is absolutely essential that we should maintain our export market and our contact between the manufacturers of export steel and the foreign market, so that if we require more steel


for export than can be made in this country we must allow steel to come in, in order that we may have adequate supplies to maintain our contact abroad.

Dr. BURGIN: Come over here.

Mr. BENSON: I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary feels the weakness of his Front Bench. That 300,000 tons is practically all raw steel and will go to the re-rollers. Very little of it is finished steel, and there is a very big demand for finished steel, as will be seen from the increased price that the Birmingham Corporation have had to pay. A further cause of the shortage from which we are suffering is due to the Customs and Excise, who are holding up thousands of tons of steel in order to apply these wretched Import Duties. By holding up that steel they have increased the shortage from which we are suffering. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see to it that steps are taken to prevent the machinery of these Import Duties from holding up steel in this way.
I think I have shown that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is utterly incapable of dealing with the iron and steel trade of this country. Nobody except a fanatical protectionist ever expected that they could. It is not the first time that great powerful monopolies have been subject to control which has been utterly futile. The United States of America have had unlimited experience of attempting to control powerful trusts, and we all know the appalling power for evil of the steel cartel on the Continent and its influence and interference in political matters. The iron and steel trade is like every other trade. If there is free competition there is hopeless inefficiency and if you get rid of the competition and set up a monopoly you get a rapacity that cannot be controlled by the Import Duties Advisory Committee or any such concern.
No one on these benches wants to go back to the hopeless inefficiency of innumerable competing plants. We wish to see a great deal more integration of the steel industry. No one suggests going back to free competition but, on the other hand, we are not prepared to accept the monopoly that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite offer us. There is a third alternative which, sooner or later, this country will have to accept, either because it requires a maximum of efficiency

or possibly because it must insist on protection from a rapacious monopoly, and that is the establishment of a great public utility company in the iron and steel industry, not for the purpose of grinding out the maximum amount of profit for the shareholders but supplying the requisite needs of this country in iron and steel and allied products.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) made, I think, an unjustifiable attack on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I thought it was an excellent speech from his point of view. The great merit of it was not what it contained but what it left out, and I am rather amused at the hon. Member for Chesterfield when he says that if we go back to free competition the whole thing would be chaotic; that if you get a monopoly you cannot control it but by some wonderful means of a State monopoly everything in the world is going to be all right. I still believe in free competition. I am pleased at the success which the steel trade is enjoying at the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under Protection."] Never mind why—I am not such a political bigot as not to be delighted with the success of the steel trade. These duties are the logical consequence of the application of Section 6 of the Finance Act. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Order we are now discussing is mere machinery. I agree, and I am not going to waste time in arguing the merits or demerits of tariffs or of this particular cartel.
I want to draw attention to the working of Section 6, or I should say the guarantees which were given under that Section. Hon. Members know that imports from cartel countries are brought in under a licensed system to be made up by the British Iron and Steel Federation, and there was a guarantee to the importers of these licensed imports as to certain things. I want to ask whether the guarantee in Annex 3 on page 12, is being carried out:
To make such arrangements for the disposal of the imports of foreign steel from the cartel as will secure to the satisfaction of the Import Duties Advisory Committee an equitable distribution of such steel as to quantities, qualities and prices among all classes of the consumers without discrimination as to whether or not they are members of an affiliated association.


Is that undertaking being carried out? I objected to this arrangement on the Report stage of the Finance Act and said that I was suspicious that monopolies would be created under this particular Section and under the facilities given by it to the Iron and Steel Federation. My information is that my suspicions were correct, and that the importation of all licensed imports of Continental gas and steam strip seem to be controlled by one firm in this country. All the imports of this particular commodity go to the firm of Stewarts and Lloyds. They are in the position of being able to control all these imports. Previous to that the Continental sale of steel strips was £5 per ton, English £6 7s. 6d., and the present English price is 18s. 6d. Is it the fact that this Continental strip is unavailable to independent makers or users? Two or three months ago this particular commodity was available at £7 7s. 6d. per ton, but this particular firm three years ago called a meeting of tube makers and told them that they were making 80 per cent. of the tubes made in this country and that they were determined to have the other 20 per cent. of the trade.
They followed that particular meeting by reducing selling prices to an uneconomic level, with the consequence that nearly all the independent tube makers in this country are now out of business. They now stand in this happy position, as I am informed, that they are controlling at the moment practically the whole of the licensed imports of this particular commodity. Secondly, they make their own raw material and they quote the users of that raw material such a price as knocks them clean out of the market for finished products. Having sold at uneconomic prices for three years and driven most of their competitors out of business the competitors of this particular firm are in this position, that as compared with three or four years ago their turnover has been brought down to 7 per cent. of what it was previously. Now what does this firm do? They suggest that an agreement should be drawn up, and I am going to quote to the House the terms of the agreement. It is called the "Gas Tube Organisation." I shall quote fairly fully because I want these questions to be answered:
The agreement is for the regulation between the parties of the sale and delivery

of gas, water and steam steel and wrought iron tubes and for the supply by Stewarts and Lloyds, Limited, of at least 75 per cent of the steel strip requirements of the firms provided they all accept the following main terms and conditions.
They shall fix daily or from time to time prices and conditions of sale and delivery and other matters within the agreement.
That the quotas of the parties be based on the audited deliveries in the following periods:
This is interesting because they fixed a certain date for the home trade and a certain date for the export trade, and the year fixed was the year when the competitors had been brought down in their turnover because of the uneconomic price of selling. The Agreement says:
The prices of steel and wrought iron tubes when the firms draw any of their basis quota from Stewarts and Lloyds, Limited, or members of their group, shall be in accordance with Schedule A attached hereto.
It goes on to say that they
shall have absolute control of selling prices in the export trade.
That is the agreement they have now suggested should be drawn up and signed by those competititors who have been brought almost to a standstill in their business because of the monopolistic powers enjoyed by that particular combine. Was that what was intended when the promise was made by Sir Andrew Duncan to the Import Duties Advisory Committee? Is that what the House expected when it passed Section 6 of the Finance Act? Was it anticipated for one moment that one great combine would be able by the power of finance and its organisation to stamp out every individual firm? If they were permitted to import steel from the Cartel into this country at the same price as everybody else pays for it, without its going through other hands, they would still be able to compete with this particular combine. I am not making a debating point of this; all I am trying to get is fair play between one user and another. Are the Government content to see small firms dominated by this monopolistic combine? Does the individual count any longer in this country?
I would like to ask another question bearing on the same point. Is it correct that the British Iron and Steel Federation have imported during September and October an additional tonnage of


wire rods (said to be 600 tons) in excess of the quota agreed with the Cartel, and was the allotment to the group of independent firms for October 59 tons above those of August and September? If that be the case, was it a fair allotment? I would like also to ask whether paragraph (a) of Annexe 3 of Command Paper 5201 is being carried out. In that paragraph, the Iron and Steel Federation gave the following pledge:
To use their best endeavours to secure that adequate supplies of suitable steel are at all times available to meet the reasonable requirements of British consumers, and to make arrangements, if circumstances so require, for the importation of such additional tonnages as the Import Duties Advisory Committee may deem necessary in excess of those fixed by the Cartel Agreement.
Under that particular agreement, I understand that the Federation arranges increased imports or may consider suggestions as to the tonnage of those increased imports. I would like to ask a third question, What knowledge have the independent firms of these arrangements? Are they aware of what amount of tonnage the Federation arranges in excess of the quota, and if they have no knowledge—which I understand to be the case—how can they tell what their percentage increase should be? How can paragraph (a) be checked up? How can an individual firm know whether it is getting a fair proportion of any increased imports? Moreover, everybody knows that every user of iron and steel in country to-day is having difficulty with regard to deliveries. Everybody knows also that when those difficulties are encountered every business man would like to be in a position of knowing in advance what supplies he is going to have at a given date to meet a particular demand. To whom can these individual firms apply in advance for their share of any increase in imports when they are controlled by one Federation? Another question which I wish to ask is this. Are independent firms notified of any increased imports Do they know that there is going to be an increase, or is it an accomplished fact before they are aware that there is a certain supply to which they are entitled, in proportion to their requirements, under paragraph (a)?
I know that I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary a great many questions, but I would also put this to him. Could not the independent firms be notified of any agreement made for increased imports, so that they would be able to apply for a share in that increase? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to arrange that each customer shall in the first place be informed by the Federation of his percentage share of the total imports, on the basis of the August-September original agreed allotment and distribution? These firms are not aware of what is their proper share, and it seems to me that all along the line they are working in the dark. In the second place, could not the President of the Board of Trade arrange that each customer should know the total tonnage of wire rods agreed each month between the Federation and the cartel for importation, and also that they should have an indication of any excess arranged above the quota?
I am concerned as to whether proper steps are being taken to see that. fair play is given to everybody in the trade. It is not my purpose to score debating points. I am not going to waste time in discussing whether a tariff system is wise or unwise. It is here and we have to accept it, but it is the duty of the House to see that justice is done as between the monopoly and the individual user. Certain guarantees were given specifically under that Section 6 of the Finance Act to which I have referred. I remember the interesting Debate which we had upon it. Do the guarantees mean Anything? It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to come down to the House and to say, "You can be satisfied; everything is being done perfectly well," but that will not do. That is a statement made, I am certain, in good faith, but it may be a statement sent to him by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and I candidly confess that, as far as their treatment of this kind of thing is concerned, I am not satisfied that their judgment is to be relied upon. I feel convinced that the trend of modern legislation is in favour of the big monopoly, and to me it is a tragedy that such should be the case. I hate monopolies. They are against the interest of the community and they are against the interest


of the individual, and the rights of the individual are far more important to me than the privilege of a monopoly.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: I intervene only for a moment to remind hon. Members opposite that when they were in office we were importing 3,000,000 tons of iron and steel into this country and that they sent Mr. J. H. Thomas to Canada especially to see if he could arrange for 300,000 tons extra export to be made from this country to Canada. Now we have seen the difference of what is happening under the present Government. I have no axe to grind in this matter. I use a safety razor, and I do believe that the Import Duties Advisory Committee are dealing justly and fairly, as far as they possibly can, with these questions as they arise; and I am surprised at hon. Members opposite, seeing the difference in the state of these trades now, making such a lot of trouble about what in the aggregate are comparatively small matters. I hope that they will see their way to support rather than oppose these Orders.

10.26 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: I have a certain sense of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. In all his speeches in this House he has given the impression of having a logical mind. He does know something about figures, and he does not treat them like adjectives, as does the Minister of Labour, but for a man with a logical mind and who knows as much about this matter as the Parliamentary Secretary does to get up and have to put the case that he has put before us to-day—well, I can only say that he has our respectful sympathy. He says that really this is only machinery, a mere consequential arrangement, but surely we have to see how this Clause 6 is likely to work out and how it is working out at the present time. The Government came to us with a record of muddle in the iron and steel trade unprecedented even for this muddling Government, and that is saying a lot. They have created something like a monopoly, and the fact is that they have given these people vast powers without apparently having any control whatever over how those powers are being exercised. I can imagine the kind of speech that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his

more regenerate days, would have made from these benches, and I feel regretful that we are not able to listen on this occasion to the brilliant oration that he could have made if he had been engaged in tying up his present chief instead of having to support that muddling gentleman.
The Government cannot have the case both ways. Look at the people opposite. They have pleaded for tariffs, and they have said, in glowing terms, how tariffs were going to sweep away unemployment and how that really they were only asking for tariffs, not to make profits for themselves—oh no—but because their hearts bled for the working classes. Let us take the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary to-night. He has, by the way, a manner of using technical terms with a disarming air of saying, "Well, we are all experts together, and therefore this case can be taken for granted," and unless one watches him very carefully, he is very liable to get away with it. But what are the figures that he has given for 1933 and for today? The figures of unemployment in 1933, he said, were 48 per cent., and today they are 14 per cent. It is interesting to note that the 1933 figures which he took were those of just about the completest slump period and that he took the very lowest there were. Are we to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary regards 14 per cent. not even as the ordinary normal state of unemployment in the iron and steel trade, but as something for which we ought to be thankful because it is so good?

Dr. BURGIN: I was not arguing about it, but merely stating the facts. I gave the figures for 1931–2–3 and those for October this year merely to show a falling rate of unemployment. I am by no means satisfied so long as there is any unemployment.

Miss WILKINSON: We all look forward to that blissful period when there are no unemployed but the suave tone of self-satisfaction with which the hon. Gentleman pointed out that reduction of figures as a result of the tariff gave the impression, and was intended to give the impression, that the tariffs had done great good. There is 14 per cent. unemployment in the industry in a boom period with an arms programme and then the Parliamentary Secretary comes here


and suggests that it is something to be proud of. He did not say a word about potential capacity or about the men who ought to be engaged in this trade. He did not say a word about the possibility of expanding it, but in this industry at this boom period 14 per cent, is the best he can show.
I want to bring the position of the Jarrow steel works into this matter, because it is an object-lesson of how the tariff is working out. When in 1934 the Bragart report on the question of the Jarrow steel works was being discussed very much behind the scenes, the suggestion of the experts was that we might reach 10,000,000 tons production by about 1937–8. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that we are already getting 11,500,000 tons production and that it is still rising. It is not only still rising, but the demand cannot be met. I can give strings of quotations from the "Ironmonger," which is the trade periodical, showing how production is being held up because the necessary steel products cannot be obtained. With this situation the Parliamenary Secretary comes here and says that we are to pass an Order to arrange machinery with the international steel cartel so that in addition to the 520,000 tons that are allowed, we are to allow another 300,000 tons from abroad. You cannot have the argument both ways. Hon. Members on those benches can argue that you can have a high tariff and increase employment, and that the consumer, if he pays higher, gets corresponding advantages. What is happening, however, is that we have a monopoly which can refuse new firms which are prepared to put down up-to-date iron and steel plant in this country, and that monopoly can, in order to put up its own profits, demand an extra 300,000 tons of imports in order to satisfy the rising indignation of its consumers.
What sort of condition is this in a trade as vital to this country as the iron and steel trade? I can only quote briefly paragraph 194 of Mr. Malcolm Stewart's Report:
Briefly stated, the establishment of more economic manufacturing conditions in the future has been sacrificed to procure profits made available by the present good demand, influenced by the granting of a materially increased tariff on imported steel and by the Defence programme. I believe this to be a short-sighted policy….

Manufacturers will only hold their own by securing an ever increasing degree of efficiency. This is essential to national prosperity. The advantages accruing from tariffs should be utilised to promote efficiency and ability to meet foreign competition and not merely as a temporary shelter for making increased profits.
Nobody knows that better than the Parliamentary Secretary, They talk about inefficiency. Germany, the United States and France have switched over to up-to-date methods of steel production such as make a very great part of the steel production in this country so hopelessly out of date that it could not hold its own with free foreign competition, and again nobody knows that better than the Parliamentary Secretary. Fords, at Dagenham, can produce steel goods for their own use 25 per cent. cheaper than that of the prevailing combine price. Stewarts and Lloyds cost of production I understand is even lower.
I want to see the steel industry boom, not with 14 per cent. unemployed, but with a very much higher proportion of its men employed. The pathetic town of Jarrow, which I represent here, is a town which to-day, on the Government's own figure and on the evidence of the trade papers, could now have thousands of men employed, and save a bill of £286,000 which the country is bearing in Poor Law relief and unemployment benefits. It is a pretty big bill in order to save the profits of the iron and steel manufacturers. I listened not only with interest, but with dismay, to the statements made by a Liberal Member below the Gangway with regard to the history of tube making in this country. The one hope that has been held out to Jarrow is that it is to get a small tube works, and the hon. Member has pointed out how, under the working of this monopoly tariff, Stewarts and Lloyds are able to strangle any steel tube works in this country. We may be allowed, and I hope we shall be, by their mercy and grace, to make tubes at Jarrow.
What sort of position is that? The party opposite are supposed to be the patriotic party. They speak about the necessity of national rearmament, even up to an isolation standard if necessary—I do not say that the Government do so, it could not do so, but that is what most of them do; and yet the Government come here and calmly state, not at a time


when we are at war, but when we are only at the beginning of this rearmament programme, that we are so pressed for steel that we cannot get deliveries. The Minister has claimed that we are working practically to maximum production. I ask the Minister to face up to the position. If we are working practically up to maximum production now, what will the position be like when our rearmament programme is in full swing, in addition to our normal domestic consumption? Is he to come down to the House and ask for more and still more increases and licences under the steel cartel agreement? If so, what will happen? Either this rearmament programme is meant seriously, or it is a ramp for profits for the manufacturers. If it is meant seriously, do the Government seriously mean that they will increase our dependence upon people who are making our potential defences? Is that the sort of thing which a patriotic Government puts before this House?
Before the Government ask us to pass these Orders and put these enormous powers into the hands of a private organisation, why do they not say that the industry must be made efficient and that new works shall not be stopped because Messrs. Dorman, Long, the Consett Iron and Steel Company, United Steel and the rest of them say: "We have had a good time. The Government pays the bill and the steel cartel protects us from foreign competition. We are going to make hay while the sun shines because we do not believe it will shine much longer." That is what they say, although they put it into more polite language, like the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones). While the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is talking about not being able to get men and pulling long faces, he is leaving this country dependent upon foreign imports of steel, and increasing that dependence if nothing is to be done to increase the production of steel in this country.
The Government cannot have it both ways. I am not stating the case as I would like to state it, but from the Government's own point of view. The Government asked for a mandate, and got it on the basis of tariffs, and hon. Mem-

bers who go to their constituencies—when they do go to them—talk about rearmament. I say that the Government are weak in the face of a monopoly which they have themselves created. If that were not so, they could have forced some kind of reorganisation, but now they are trying to say that it is too late to start steel works in Jarrow or in South Wales because the period is over now, and it would be two years before there was production. As a matter of fact, a steel works could be in production in a much less time. Even now, we ask the Government to face the realities of the situation and to get some organisation done before it, is too late.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: I hope the House will realise that I do not intervene for the purpose of prolonging the discussion or arguing the issue of Free Trade or Protection, but because hon. Members on these benches, and, I am sure, other hon. Members, have a real interest in the employment of our people and in a certain amount of decency in industrial life, both of which we believe to be threatened by the Orders which are now before us. As to employment, we believe that countless manufacturers with the widest possible range, employing thousands of men and having a capacity for employing thousands more, are cramped, hindered and crippled to-day, in the home and export markets, because of their inability to get steel in the conditions as to delivery, quality and price which are needed for their full development.
In this matter, one can never quite refrain from going to the fountain head of all good sense which has been poured out on this matter, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself, where he has said:
The fact is, there is not a single class of the community, industrial or domestic, which would not be injured by the imposition of a duty on imported steel. You cannot find a single trade in this country of importance which is not directly dependent upon cheap steel. The Protectionist campaign will centre on steel, but it may be the beginning of the end. I hope it will be the beginning of a great defeat for the Protectionist Government.
A great many things have changed since the President of the Board of Trade said that, but, as he said in the same speech:
There are some things which do not change, for instance, the laws of arithmetic. They remain absolutely the same.


When we were debating the Import Duties some 12 days ago, I ventured to put before the House one or two bits of information which I had received from manufacturers. I think the Parliamentary Secretary gently mocked me for doing it, and implied that information supplied to a private Member of Parliament by some miserable little manufacturer or other, was of very little importance. But really these people are not little manufactures, and, if they were, I would say that well over half the people employed in this country are employed by little manufacturers. It is these little men who know what the conditions are to-day, and therefore I make no apology for submitting to the House quotations from two letters which I have received, and which, of course, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said, are two out of strings which might be produced:
It is beyond all doubt that something like famine conditions are prevailing…. There is a known shortage of re-rolling billets which is already having an adverse effect on our capacity to buy small bars, and this trouble looks like becoming intensified…. Quite frankly, I think the time has definitely arrived when the gates ought once more to be opened to further supplies of foreign steel.
There is undoubtedly very great difficulty everywhere in getting delivery of mild steel, and the position is such that buyers who have big contracts with steel makers at fixed prices are even obliged to pay a premium to get deliveries. The attitude of the steel makers appears to be very independent, and in our work we are bound to use material which in the ordinary way we would reject, owing to the difficulty in getting replacement.
That is the background against which these Orders are being imposed; and a far more serious point in the Orders is that they raise grave questions as to the decency of industrial life. We are setting up a monopoly. I asked the President of the Board of Trade a few days ago whether the assurance of equitable distribution of steel as to quantities, qualities and prices among all classes of consumers, without discrimination as to whether they were members of the Association or not, was being observed, and I was told that the Import Duties Advisory Committee was looking into the matter. I hope the present Debate will at least have achieved this, that the Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Members opposite will now realise that, when Members of the Opposition and members of the public express disquiet on any

point, it is no longer a satisfactory answer to tell us that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is looking into the matter and will make a report. If they say that they are satisfied that non-members of the British Iron and Steel Federation are getting steel on equitable terms, I deny that that is so, since throughout the industry merchants and consumers are being forced to toe the line by the Federation, and to accept their terms under the threat of refusal to grant the supplies that are needed. I believe that that is the case with regard to the 300,000 tons of steel which is to be imported additional to the Cartel agreement amount. Is it the fact—I believe it is—that 300,000 tons is bought outright at the foreign price, plus 20 per cent., by the British Iron and Steel Federation, and redistributed by them at the British price fixed by the Cartel less a certain amount which corresponds to its slightly inferior quality as compared with British steel? I believe that the whole of that importation is treated in that way, and that the British Iron and Steel Federation make therefrom a profit in the neighbourhood of 10s. a ton. If that is true, it would be £150,000 profit per year. As to the 500,000 tons imported under the Cartel arrangement, is it the fact that on the whole of that the British Iron and Steel Federation take a commission, and a commission very substantially higher than would satisfy any merchant on a much smaller quantity, and without rendering to any party the services which an ordinary iron and steel merchant would be expected to render? I believe these things are true, and I ask whether they are true. Obstinately perhaps, I shall not be in the least satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary tells me that they are not, not for a moment that I will not believe his answer, but because if these things are not true to-day there is no earthly reason why they should not become true to-morrow, with nobody knowing anything about it. This is not a case for supervision by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is not even a case for an ad hoc inquiry. It is a case, where the Government have set up a monopoly under the protection of the State and there can be no health in the industry, no public confidence in the industry, unless representatives of the State are permanently placed where they can see everything which goes on within


this monoply, and report to the Government and to the public regularly if any abuses are taking place.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: Could anything be reported to the House of Commons at the instance of some officer of the State which is not examined by the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Mr. ACLAND: I thought it had become clear in the course of this Debate that those of us who are not satisfied that the industry itself can be trusted without investigation are not now likely to be satisfied merely because we are told that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is making a private investigation on evidence which is not published and not likely to be published and making reports which, again, I do not believe—I speak subject to correction—are likely to be published.

Sir P. HANNON: Would the hon. Member indicate to the House with what kind of data he would be satisfied?

Mr. ACLAND: I think that there ought to be representatives of the State on whatever it may be which corresponds to the board of management of the British Iron and Steel Federation, that no action of that Federation should be valid without their full cognizance, that the whole accounts of the Federation should be available to them and they should know precisely where every penny of the money is being spent. Nobody knows where the money is being spent now. The whole of that should regularly and automatically come under the eyes of representatives of the State. Because we may disagree with the Opposition about the nationalisation of the industry, there is 110 need to say that there is no difference between our attitude and that of hon. Members opposite on these matters. We have been discussing a Public Order Bill. We know that that in part is to meet the menace of Fascist methods. It is not from Sir Oswald Mosley that the danger of Fascism arises at the present time. This is Fascism. This is the glorification of the back-door influences of the vested interests of individualists, and unless hon. Members opposite are prepared to insist by their votes to-night that industries shall be run honestly and openly for the good of the community as a whole, they will have no right to complain over what may happen to them

at the hands of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and his colleagues.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Debate that we have had has shown very clearly that, however complacent the Board of Trade may be, the House, at least in many parts of it, is disturbed about the situation in the iron and steel industry. The case put before us by the Parliamentary Secretary certainly did not convince my hon. Friends, and did not convince me, that the present arrangement is being adequately run or supervised in the interests of the community, or is likely in the long run to be for the good of the country as a whole. I was amazed to hear some of the conclusions that he drew from the present state of affairs. It is true, of course, that production has very substantially gone up, but that is the state of every steel industry in the world. There is no greater measure of recovery in the production of iron and steel in this country than there is in any one of the main iron and steel centres of the world. There is no special merit in the tariff policy of the Goverment in that amount of recovery. The actual impetus which has been given to the volume of output of basic steel by the introduction of the armaments programme in this country as well as other countries is an additional factor in that output. When you see the arguments that have lain behind the previous cases submitted by the Government in favour of an iron and steel tariff, one can but think that the Government are sadly letting the country down unless they insist upon a detailed, systematic and adequate inquiry into the interests of the community in relation to the monopoly that is now being set up.
The Import Duties Advisory Committee has been charged now, I understand, with the special task of inquiring into the future of the industry. It seems to me to be a rather extraordinary task to allocate to a committee of three, usually sitting in camera, in which the public has the greatest difficulty in getting, to inquire into the communal effect of the reconstruction of the iron and stel industry in the future. I should have thought that, in view of the experience that we are having, there ought to be an ad hoc and special committee appointed now to inquire into the position of the industry, for the public are


not being protected as consumers as they ought to be. The case that has always been submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary is that if we once gave a sufficient amount of confidence in the industry by the protection that a tariff would bring, output would increase and, with the increase of output and the reduction of charges by way of establishment and the like, so far from prices rising, they would in actuality fall. I see the Parliamentary Secretary nods his head and says that is a correct interpretation of the views that he gave. We have had to-night an example of how it is working out from the case submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) in regard to a structure needed by the Birmingham Corporation. Let me give my own experience of the average prices which we have been paying, in an organisation with which I am known to be connected, in the past two years for structural steel. We paid for plain beams in 1931, £9 per ton; in 1932, £8 11s.; in 1933, £9 17s. 6d.; in 1934, £9 13s.; in 1935, £13; and in 1936, £15 5s. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that that rise is all accounted for by costs, or, as was suggested by the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones), the increase in the price of coke?

Mr. L, JONES: The right hon. Gentleman does me an injustice. It was not I who interrupted, I did not suggest that coke was responsible. I am sure that he does not wish to misrepresent me.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. I know that there was an interruption from that quarter; and, from the subsequent remarks of the hon. Gentleman, I gathered that it came from him. If it was not his remark, I at once withdraw my imputation, but certainly the suggestion was made from that bench by one of his colleagues that it was due to the price of coke. This is our experience of the increase in this class of steel from 1932 to 1936—£8 10s. to £15 5s. The price we paid for compound beams in 1934 was £11, and this year we paid £18. Let me take plain stanchions. In 1934 we paid £12 10s., which was less than the price we paid in 1931, and in 1936, £19.

Mr. LECKIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the extra wages paid in

the iron and steel industry and also in the coal industry?

Mr. ALEXANDER: We shall be very glad to have that matter thoroughly inquired into on the lines of the ad hoc inquiry for which I am asking to-night. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie), who made the interjection, will carefully observe the percentage of increase which I am quoting from our actual experience—£11 to £18 per ton. Does he suggest that wages have increased at that rate? Combined stanchions in 1934 were £12 15s.; and in 1936, £20. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the wages of iron and steel workers have increased at that rate, even if you allow for some extra cost of production in regard to wages connected with the industry There is quite another explanation than that of the hon. Member for Walsall, who will, perhaps, do me the honour of checking the other side of the matter. The extra price which is being extracted from the consumer is going into profits to the iron and steel industry behind the Federation. If there is any doubt about that, you have only to watch the share market. I should have thought that hon. Members who support this tariff were even more interested in the share market than we who sit on this side of the House. Let me give some of the figures. The shares of Messrs. Baldwins, according to the "Times" were, on 19th May, 9s., and are now 14s. 10½d.; Cammell Laird, on 19th May, 9s. 1½d., and on 11th November, 19s. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are now down a bit."] The shares of Dorman Long, on 19th May, were 32s., and on 11th November, 51s. 3d.; Messrs. Hadfields, on 19th May, 23s. 9d., and on 11th November, 35s. 3d. I will take the shares of another Sheffield Company, which speak more clearly still. Vickers shares on 21st November, 1934, were 10s. 9d., and on 11th November, 1936, they were 36s. 1½d.—this for a share which had been written down to 6s. 8d.

Mr. RADFORD: rose—

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot give way, as I am sure hon. Members do not want to sit too late to-night. This index of the stock and share market shows clearly where the extra prices extracted from the consumers go. They are looking to get some extra profits on shares and the issue of bonus shares on the output of steel


which hon. Members opposite tell us is to meet the extremities and needs of the country, although their way of dealing with the business has been largely responsible for the dislocation and starvation of the steel industry since the War.
Let me look at Vickers, of Sheffield. They had enormous War profits and increased their share capital during the War by over 200 per cent. Of bonus shares. After the War the slump came and they wrote the shares down to their original value, so that the £1 share became 6s. 8d. Now they are offered again on the market at over 36s. The same process is going on, and we shall have exactly the same experience in the iron and steel industry over again after the armament orders cease, because you are not building up the industry on sure foundations. There is no one with experience of capitalist industry who does not know it to be the truth that you are building now and for the next few years for exactly the same slump, the same disaster, the same lack of consideration for the workers to whom you are now making an appeal, that occurred in 1920–22. In Sheffield they were forced to go to the Poor Law just as you will be re-forcing them on to the Poor Law at the end of the armaments campaign.
The whole basis of dealing with this armaments Problem is a mockery of the real position, and need of the working classes. When we look at the way the country is being bamboozled and misled, we are entitled to oppose in principle the whole system which the Government is fastening on the country and the iron and steel industry. The Government have shown shameless neglect of the country's needs in the re-armaments necessity by not checking the profits that are being made behind this system, and by not dealing with the steel ring, which prevents adequate supplies of steel from being supplied to the people who need it. Do not let the Parliamentary Secretary deny that the steel ring exists. The ring is very close and very effective. I have here a list of tenders with which I had some connection. It gives the quotations for steel, and is contained in a report which I made a few months ago to the Building Materials Prices Committee, of which I am a member. That is an inquiry on which we do not seem to be able to make any progress. These are

facts showing how the ring works. It is a list of many firms who were asked to tender for the supply of structural steel for a building of the value of, roughly, £20,000. Six of the seven who tendered quoted exactly the same price for the steel for that £20,000 job, even to the extent of the odd 15s. ld. They quoted absolutely alike even to the last penny on a price arranged between the six firms, leaving a very shrewd suspicion in our minds—as those who have been connected with municipal work in the past know with regard to the building industry—that the one firm that tendered less was taking its turn, being instructed, to take the job. That is the kind of thing that goes on behind the ramp of the protective tariff ring, with this limiting of output, this starvation of the needs of the country. Yet hon. Members opposite call it a beneficent policy which has restored the industrial prosperity of the country.

Mr. REMER: It is not nearly so bad as it was before.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It was due to the capitalist exploitation of the country's need at a time of war.

Mr. REMER: Was it not the awful result of free trade?

Mr. ALEXANDER: If the hon. Member had made inquiries he would find that exactly the same results were being experienced by capitalist countries which enjoyed the blessings of protection. It is sheer humbug to suggest that the condition of the iron and steel industry is due to tariffs when other iron and steel countries had protection and the industry was in the same condition. Capitalist control of this great industry took advantage of the country's needs during war and you will adopt the same disastrous line now unless you are prepared to take measures in this period of the country's need for rearmament and in the period which immediately follows the boom. The workers who are being asked to support this particular tariff because they will get a percentage increase of wages based on the price of steel will be led into the same fool's paradise unless they have the wisdom to stand behind their own representatives for the public ownership of the means of production, which alone can help them.

11. l2 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: Little of what the right hon. Gentleman has said has any reference, even remote, to the Orders we are discussing. The House would hardly have that from his indictment of a great series of industries and the way they are carried on, that these industries, which were languishing in 1929 and in the depression which followed, have been brought back to a state of healthy production, and that they are the mainstay and the principal source of supply of almost every form of industrial activity in this country. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to works after works in this country where he would see steel plant which challenges plant in any part of the world. I could take him to his own city and show him steel works which are exporting steel to Germany, because it is better steel, and I could tell him that this industry which never before has reached 1,000,000 tons output per month has three times recently exceeded that figure and that this year's output is 2,500,000 tons above any previous figure. There was little likeness to the actual facts in the oration of the right hon. Gentleman.
Let me deal with some of the questions which have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) asked me a series of definite questions but I gather that if I give him definite answers they will not be accepted. None the less I propose to give them. There is no truth in the suggestion that the British Steel Federation make a profit of 10s. or any other figure on the 300,000 additional tons of imported steel from the cartel countries. It is true that the working of an agreement on a cartel does provide for bulk buying. The only way by which an agreement can be made between the group in each of the five countries is that contracting parties should be the groups, and the contracting parties as far as the United Kingdom is concerned is the British Iron and Steel Federation, and all quantities, all prices and distribution are as a matter of contractual right, entered into and accepted by the group. Therefore, it is true to say that these 300,000 extra tons which have been ordered by the British Iron and Steel Federation because of the needs of industry are ordered by the federation, but the idea that an

intermediate profit is gained by the federation and that then the steel is parcelled out to consumers at some different price, is a myth of the hon. Gentleman's own creation.

Mr. BENSON: I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary carefully limits that disclaimer to the 300,000 tons. Is it not a fact that the Iron and Steel Federation receives a definite commission of 5s. a ton on the actual quota allowance?

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with one subject at a time. The question asked by the hon. Member for Barnstaple related to the specific 300,000 tons, and he quoted an intermediate profit of 10s. a ton. I am not informed as to whether there is a commission with regard to the whole quota under the agreement, but I will make inquiries and endeavour to inform the hon. Member in the course of my remarks. It seems to me that there may well be an office charge in regard to the working of the agreement. The specific point put by the hon. Member for Barnstaple was that steel was bought at a Continental price and resold in this country at an English price. I have made inquiries with regard to that, and the suggestion is completely not in accordance with the facts. There is no such intermediate profit. I will have inquiries made as to whether there is a commission on the ordinary 525,000 tons that come in every year.
The questions that were asked during the Debate ranged over a number of points. The hon. Member for Barnstaple asked whether it is not true that there are famine conditions. The House will realise that since the Cartel Agreement was entered into there has been an enormous increase in world demands for steel, but the idea that has been given to the House by some speakers that the difficulty in getting steel is limited to this country is a mistaken idea. There is difficulty in getting steel in any part of the world, because there is a large industrial recovery and because in many countries there are armaments programmes. Steel deliveries are very late in the United States of America, where there is no question of rearmament, but where there is great industrial expansion. Steel deliveries are delayed in France, where, quite apart from industrial recovery, there is a rearmament programme.
Therefore, I want the House to understand that the whole story of famine difficulties is a world phenomenon. There is a demand for steel far in excess of supplies, and there are very large quantities of steel the delivery of which can only e possible a considerable number of months later. That has nothing to do with conditions peculiar to this country. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) asked me to make inquiries, and I gave him the assurance that I would if possible give the information in the course of my remarks. The latest information available to His Majesty's Government is that there is an office charge of 6d. a ton made by the Federation with regard to the 525,000 tons, the bulk of the shipment under the Cartel Agreement. That exactly confirms the impression I had that there would be an office charge.
The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) very naturally raised again the question of the steel works at Jarrow. I do not in the least complain of that, but before dealing with her questions, may I give her a message of encouragement to the locality which she so indefatigably represents? There is little reason to doubt that the tube works will begin work next year. The works are going down there with the good will and entire co-operation of Stewarts and Lloyds and the Tube Industries Limited. This is no question of a small works which will be liable to be frozen out. This is a branch of the great tube industry to be established in Jarrow and the whole House, I am sure, will rejoice at the fact. I do not want to argue in detail the question of the starting of a steel works in Jarrow. The hon. Lady read extracts from the Commissioner's report and also referred to the report of the experts. Let me say, as a general proposition, that there is no obstacle to the starting in any part of the United Kingdom of steel works at any time. There is no opposition from the Government or anyone else to the starting of new steel works. But if a group of people want to start a steel works and if they go to financiers for money, they must expect to find that the financiers will want to know among other things whether there is an assurance that the output of steel from those works will be taken. If the hon. Lady will look further into some of the stories surrounding the starting

or non-starting of a steel works in Jarrow, she may find that one of the difficulties was that those in charge of the setting-up of those works were compelled to ask for extra finance and were unable to give the answers which were requisite to that condition—

Miss WILKINSON: If there is what is practically a famine in steel and if work is being held up for six or seven weeks or longer waiting for deliveries—surely, there is your market. What is the use of the hon. Gentleman saying that you can put up steel works wherever you like when, in fact, you cannot. I want to know what he means.

Dr. BURGIN: I shall be glad to go into the question in detail with the hon. Lady. I am only giving to the House the statement which they ought to have, that there is no bar to the setting up, in any part of the country, of steel works. It is apparent that the demand for steel is unsatisfied. It is apparent that, as an industrial proposition, the making of steel possesses advantages. But if a group setting up a steel works is not able to supply its own finance and has to go into the market and procure outside finance, one of the terms required by financiers may be an assurance that the output of the steel works will be disposed of, and as I say that may be one of the difficulties which confronts Jarrow.

Miss WILKINSON: But the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

Dr. BURGIN: I will deal with the question in a moment. Hon. Members are seeking to read into the Agreement which was made in July, 1935, some conditions arising from a demand which has taken place since. When this cartel agreement was entered into and when Section 6 of the Finance Act was passed the world increase in the demand for steel had not been foreseen by anybody. It is no argument to say now that because the demand for steel has increased and there is a delay in deliveries, therefore it shows that there was a. necessity for a steel works at the time. That is a false line of argument. The hon. Lady asked whether I was satisfied with 14 per cent. as the figure of unemployment, and I said I was not. In 1929 the figure was 20, in 1930 it was 23. It has been steadily falling, and now that it is 14 as against


the highest it ever reached, in July, 1932, of 48 per cent., there is, not an absolute, but a commensurate degree of satisfaction.
The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) put to me a very long list of questions, most of which dealt with the question of the satisfaction of consumers. One of them dealt specifically with a question relating to Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds. The hon. Member is not prepared to take an assurance from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. He wants more information. I was very careful, in introducing this matter to the House, to say that one of the factors which would have to be taken into consideration was the treatment of the consumer. I said that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who were charged with the investigation, the supervision and the smooth running of the whole of this cartel arrangement, were satisfied that the undertakings given to them by the British Iron and Steel Federation were being carried out. I repeat that assurance. Has the Co-operative movement complained to the Import Duties Advisory Committee about the price? My information is that it has not [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the use?"] The use is that if a complaint comes to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it is at once investigated, and if there is anything to be put right, it is put right.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we have opposed these duties before the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Dr. BURGIN: I am not questioning that, for political and other reasons, that may have been done. I was not conscious of saying anything controversial. I was saying that I am prepared to believe that every duty on every article will be opposed by the hon. Member opposite, but that is not the point. The point is that these duties have been enforced for a considerable time, that the Orders imposing them have been on the Order Paper for a. long time as coming up on any day when the House had time, that the complaints that have reached my Department recently have been two in number, that I have investigated both, and that there is no substance in either of them. If the hon. Member for South Bradford has an instance where

a consumer alleges that the equitable distribution of imported steel has not been carried out, he would be doing a good turn if he would be good enough to place that information at the disposal of my Department. I invite him to do it.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I understand that a firm has made this particular complaint to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, personally, that a monopoly was enjoyed by Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds.

Dr. BURGIN: I will deal with that.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get away with the idea that these people have not made a complaint. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have advised this particular firm to fall in with the scheme that I enumerated to the House, and the House must know how difficult it is for an individual firm, dependent for its supplies on a monopoly, to state that in public for fear that they might not get any supplies at all.

Dr. BURGIN: I am obliged to the hon. Member. We are not talking, obviously, about the same thing. I am anxious to see that undertakings that have been given by me to the House, given in all sincerity, and given upon the reliance that those undertakings have in turn been given to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, are absolutely and fully implemented. If there are indications that steel is not being equitably distributed to certain people who ought to get a certain percentage, and that they are being starved, I want to know, so that the facts can be brought to the attention of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and of the Iron and Steel Federation, and so that, if necessary, supplies can be sent.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple asked why there was not a Government representative on the federation so as to keep day-to-day touch. There is; the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Federation was a nominee of His Majesty's Government. The accounts of every daily dealing with the federation are open to the inspection of my Department. When the slightest question arises of why, say, wire rods are being held up, we have inquiries on the telephone as to why X and Y have not


been supplied, and they get their supplies. There may be a difficulty in arranging that a certain distribution shall precisely correspond with some particular import in the same month. There must be give and take over the difficulty of distributing a restricted quantity of an article that is greatly in demand by an expanding number of willing users. The whole system of licences with a limited quantity and an unlimited number of users presents certain formidable difficulties in administration. These difficulties are being tackled by my Department, and I say again if the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) or any other hon. Member obtains information that is in substance a complaint, I shall be grateful if it is sent to me. They were sent to me before Section 6 of the Finance Act was passed, and I investigated them. I know of no outstanding complaint that has not been satisfied.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall have to repeat a specific complaint I have brought to the notice of the Building Materials Prices Committee. I was assured that it would be forwarded to the proper quarter and investigated, but nothing came of it.

Dr. BURGIN: The matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is that six or seven firms of steel makers quoted the same prices for a particular construction. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman made a charge of an increase of 70 per cent. in prices, and there has been no answer.

Dr. BURGIN: We seem to be back on the question of price now. Let us know what we are dealing with. I was dealing with the distribution of imported steel. Now the hon. Gentleman is referring to the price of British-made steel for construction. They are two widely different things. I rejoice that the price of steel has gone up. The price in the period of depression was uneconomical and numbers of men were being discharged; reserves were being used up, and plant was not being renewed. Now plant is being brought up to date, new work is being taken, there is a period of expansion and wages have been increased. It is no use hon. Gentlemen

opposite complaining that an industry is so bad that the Government ought to do something, and then, when the Government do it, say that the industry is so good that they ought to bring prices down. Let me answer the hon. Member for South Bradford with regard to Stewarts and Lloyds. I hold no brief for that great undertaking, and the information I give must be ad referendum. Whatever else they are, Stewarts and Lloyds are a very fine undertaking with some of the most modern plant in the world. I am told that they sell tube strip to many other tube makers at lower prices than that of the foreign strip, and it is unlikely therefore that tube makers would wish to buy the foreign strip at a higher price.
The arrangement by Stewarts and Lloyds to sell strip at low prices was made at the suggestion of the Import Duties Advisory Committee following representations from some of the small tube makers themselves. The House has heard only part of the story from the hon. Member. So far as the economy of Great Britain is concerned the tube making industry represents a very fine asset. We are very proud of our steel making industry. They have captured and maintained a good share of the export market. They maintain and supply the requirements of the home market. They are enterprising and up to date. They are rationalised and they are entering into proper agreements, and I know of no reason why they should be put into the dock for doing so.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman imply that the price of English steel is below that of foreign steel? Does he say the figures I gave were wrong and will he say whether the imported steel to make these tubes is now in the control of this particular firm?

Dr. BURGIN: I was not attempting to fence with the question, but I was conscious of the fact that the House was desirous of coming to a decision. The hon. Member asserted that the imports of this particular steel came only to one particular firm, to which he referred. I have no means of checking the particular price of steel to which he refers, and I imagine that he is speaking from accurate information. I have no means of checking it at such short notice. The hon. Member for Chesterfield made a speech


the burden of which, in so far as it related to these Orders and not to rearguing the case against Section 6 of the Finance Act, was, "What is the use of a cartel agreement under which the advantages are the security of export markets if you are too busy to worry about exports at all and do not even supply the home demand?" Two extracts were read from the "Ironmonger" of 14th and 21st November of an alleged refusal to sell haematite pig because British makers were too preoccupied for overseas business, and overseas business was not easy and was liable to be turned down. Signs of increasing prosperity in an industry when, instead of looking for orders, you have the competition of orders and can fulfil which you like, is a very welcome change for the better. I do hope that industry will bear in mind that it is immensely to their advantage, as it is to the advantage of the country, to keep a hold on their overseas connections. There will come a time when the home market will no longer be able to take the whole of the output and they will be desperately hard put to it to find markets for their supplies for overseas, and I hope that no words of mine from this Box will ever induce manufacturers to regard with anything other than special care an order for the export market. The figures I have show that the exports are being maintained, and that in the first year of the cartel we actually exported 100,000 tons more than our permitted quota.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that for the first ten months of this year the exports of iron and steel went down by over 100,000 tons?

Dr. BURGIN: The exports of iron and steel for the first 10 months of 1936 are considerably more than they were in 1934, at any rate.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It was 1935 I was speaking of.

Dr. BURGIN: I was following what the hon. Member said. The actual figures appear to be that for 1935 the exports were 2,372,000 tons, and for the first 10 months of this year 2,170,000 tons. There does appear to be a difference of 200,000 tons in amount, and the difference in price is £37,000,000 in 1935 and £35,500,000 in 1936. There appears to be a falling off in those 10 months. I do not know what the cause was, I imagine preoccupation with the home demand.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is only fair that the Parliamentary Secretary should give a true picture. The President of the Board of Trade, in speaking to the trade a few days ago, emphasised the falling export. I wish the hon. Gentleman would give the true picture.

Dr. BURGIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that I am attempting to give anything other than a true picture. I have endeavoured to answer some of the points. I close with the statement that the iron and steel industry is now in a very much healthier position than it has ever been at any time within living memory, and I ask the House to pass the Orders to enable the prosperity to continue.

Question put,

The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 78.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.·Col. G. J.
Bull, B. B.
Doland, G. F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Donner, P. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cary, R. A.
Duckwortn, W. R. (Moss Side)


Apsley, Lord
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dundale, Major T. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duggan, H. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Channon, H.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Christie, J. A.
Eckersley, P. T.


Beaurnont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Bernays, R. H.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Ellis, Sir G.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Elliston, G. S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Errington, E.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crooke, J. S.
Erskine Hill, A. G.


Brass, Sir W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Everard, W. L.


Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Cross, R. H.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Furness, S. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H C. (Newbury)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Fyfe, D. P. M.




Gledhill, G.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scott, Lord William


Gluckstein, L. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Selley, H. R.


Goldie, N. B.
McKie, J. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Grimston, R. V.
Markham, S. F.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Maxwell, S. A.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Hannah, I. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Somerset, T.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'ncst'r)
Spens, W. P.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Storey, S.


Hepworth, J.
Munro, P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Holmes, J. S.
Neven-Spence, Mal. B. H. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hunter, T.
Penny, Sir G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jackson, Sir H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Jones. L. (Swansea, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Keeling, E. H.
Porritt, R. W.
Turton, R. H.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Radford, E. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kimball, L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir J. S.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Leckie, J. A.
Refd, W. Allen (Derby)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, J. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord.


Liddall, W. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel G..


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Loftus, P. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wright, Squadron Leader J. A. C


Lyons, A. M.
Rowlands, G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)



MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Salmon, Sir I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


M'Connell, Sir J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Mr. James Stuart and Dr. Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Riley, B.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Adams, D. M. (Popiar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Adamson, W. M.
Holdsworth, H.
Rowson, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Ammon, C. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Barnes, A. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bellenger, F.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Broad, F. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Burke, W. A.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibbins, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 28) Order, 1936, dated the twelfth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 29) Order, 1936, dated the twelfth day

of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

11.50 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 30) Order, 1936, dated the sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.


This Order and the accompanying Silk Duties (No. 2) Order are the ones which deal with Coronation souvenirs, on which they impose a duty of 100 per cent. Imports of these articles are not required here at all. Notice was given on 23rd July that the matter was under discussion. That acted as a general deterrent. Many of these goods come from France and Germany. Both Governments have agreed to these Orders.

11.51 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am not going to divide the House on this Order, although it is significant that one of the first results of the move at Geneva for a general lowering of duties all round is that for the first time we have introduced a prohibitive duty of 100 per cent. There is a certain amount of sentimental feeling that for the Coronation we should show our sentiment and patriotism by producing the stuffs required in Great Britain. That is right, but the hon. Gentleman should make it clear that advantage should not be taken of this so that producers of patriotic emblems can profiteer. I represent the poorest borough in London. In the Silver Jubilee celebrations there was no more patriotic area than Bethnal Green, and no area that showed more enthusiasm and loyalty in celebrating his late Majesty's Silver Jubilee. Several streets were barricaded in order that the people could unite to show their patriotism by entertaining the children in the district. Yet on that occasion it was impossible to buy the necessary flags and decorations at prices they could pay. There was one poor street which had across its entrance the true statement—because nearly all the people were unemployed—"We are poor but patriotic." They could not get flags, and so to show their patriotism they hung out their lace curtains. The producers of emblems and flags are to be given a monopoly. I hope the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to see that this monopoly shall not be used to exploit the poor people in connection with the celebration of His Majesty's Coronation. There is already a shortage of these things, and the people who will lose by this monopoly are not the well-to-do and the prosperous classes, but the poorer section of the community.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: The Minister in charge of these Orders should advise the House what the estimated value of these

imports is likely to be, and inform us of the probable effect on our exports to the countries concerned.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I should not have risen had it not been for the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). As representing a constituency which makes most of these flags and banners, I would inform him that one of the reasons why at the time of the Jubilee some of his poor friends were not able to get these articles at reasonable prices was that up to the last moment they did not know whether they would be able to obtain them from foreign countries at very cheap rates or whether they would get them from English manufacturers, and at the last moment there was such a demand that the Macclesfield manufacturers were working night and day, paying those on night shift double pay. The effect of this Order will be that manufacturers will know beforehand that they are to have a fair deal, and I think I can assure the hon. Baronet that they will not charge undue prices. There is one word that I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary. Although a great many of these flags may be finished in Great Britain, much of the silk will be woven in Japan. There is an application before the Import Duties Advisory Committee and I would make an appeal to him. If something could be done to speed up that application in order to see that the silk is British and not Japanese, it would be greatly to the benefit of British industry.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 30) Order, 1936, dated the sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

IMPORT DUTIES (FINANCE ACT, 1933).

Resolved,
That the Silk Duties (No. 2) Order, 1936, dated the sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Finance Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House


on the said sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.